13
Embankment Dams
Embankment Dams
Embankment Dams
Chapter 5: Protective Filters
1
DS-13(5)-9 refers to Design Standards No. 13, chapter 5, revision 9.
47;c0c)
Mark Pabst, RE., Geotechnical Engineer Date
Peer Review:
Security view:
arry K. NP , RE.
Structural ngineer, Structural Analysis Group
Submitted:
Approved:
Page
Procedure....................................................... 5-71
5.6.2.2 Tests for Clay Lumps and Friable Particles ...... 5-94
Appendices
A Filtering and Transmissibility Needs of Drains in Dams and Other
Water-Impounding Structures
B Geotextiles as Filters
C Example – Filter Design
D Example – Inadequate Filter and Drain Geometry
E Toe Drain Access Features
Page
Figure 5.1.4-1. Example of broadly and uniformly graded soils. ........ 5-4
Figure 5.1.9-3. Eroding soil from a crack has been caught at the
Figure 5.1.9-4. Eroding soil from the crack has been caught at
the filter face, and hydraulic fracturing from the high gradients
between water in the crack and the adjacent filter has caused
further widening of the cake on the filter until the gradient
is reduced. ....................................................................................... 5-13
Photo 5.2.3.2.3-1. 1950s era concrete pipe used as a toe drain ........... 5-39
Photo 5.2.3.5-1. Clay tile pipe surrounded by gravel-size material ..... 5-41
Figure 5.4.1.7-1. Base soil selection flowchart for earthfill. ............... 5-73
Figure 5.4.1.7-2. Selection process for in situ base soils. .................... 5-73
gradations........................................................................................ 5-74
sand)................................................................................................ 5-86
Figure 5.8.5.2-1. Typical compaction curves for a clean sand ............ 5-135
Tables
Page
aggregate1........................................................................................ 5-107
Table 5.7.2-2. Gradation for ASTM D448 drain materials
2 feet................................................................................................ 5-111
Table 5.8.7.2.3-1. Example of minimum testing frequency
Protective Filters
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Purpose
Filters and drains have been recognized as a means of directing and controlling the
flow of water through porous media for thousands of years; the earliest documented
use of drains is at the Ur of the Chaldees. Filters are used to prevent migration of
fines between various zones and foundations of embankment dams. Seepage
transport of soil particles between zones can lead to serious consequences and, in
extreme cases, failure of an embankment dam. The criteria presented in this
chapter are for guidance in the proper design of soil filters, drains, and zoning of
embankment dams.
The particular design requirements and site conditions of each embankment dam
are unique, and as such, no single publication can cover all of the requirements and
conditions that can be encountered during design and construction. Therefore, it is
critically important that embankment dam filters be designed by engineers
experienced with all aspects of the design and construction of embankment dams.
Embankment dams, regardless of their size, create a hazard potential from the
stored energy of the water they impound. Examples, such as Kelley Barnes Dam,
which failed suddenly in 1977, show the destructive power of water when it is
released suddenly from behind even a small embankment dam. This embankment
dam was less than about 40 feet high and about 400 feet long, but when it failed, it
released water downstream at an estimated flow rate of over 24,000 cubic feet per
second, killing 39 people.
The designer should inform the TSC, via the Web site notification procedure, of
any recommended updates or changes for the design standards to meet current
design practices.
5.1.4 Nomenclature
Through the decades, a number of terms have been used in association with filter
zones and materials. Some, due to the historical precedent, are confusing today.
This section will present some of the background for these terms and describe the
nomenclature that will be used in this chapter.
It has been a common practice to describe soil based on grain size distribution, or
gradation. Since soils behave differently, in an engineering sense, if they are all
one particle size or if they have a wide range of sizes, terms came into being to
describe these two different classes of soils. As advancements were being made in
the development of concrete mix design, it was recognized that aggregate
containing roughly equal amounts of sand and gravel made for a stronger and more
economical product than an aggregate that was only sand. Therefore, aggregate
gradations that had roughly equal parts sand and gravel were called well graded
because they will do well as a concrete aggregate. In a similar manner, gradations
that only included sand sizes were termed poorly graded due to the poor
performance of that mix design. While broadly (well) graded soils are acceptable
in some filter applications, it should not be concluded that they are superior to more
uniformly (poorly) graded soils. Uniformly (poorly) graded soils are preferred for
use in two-stage designs such as toe drains, and it should not be inferred that they
are “poor” or unacceptable for use.
To help alleviate this confusion, new terms were introduced that were more generic
to the shape of the gradation curve and did not focus on the performance of a
particular gradation. Gradations that included many soil types, and when viewed
on the gradation plot had a broad appearance, were named broadly graded. On the
other hand, a gradation of a single soil type would appear narrow on the gradation
chart and was named narrowly graded. Since these narrow gradations are also
uniform in their distribution, the term uniformly graded is also used. Therefore, the
following terms are synonymous:
In the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the distinction between well and
poorly graded soils is made by use of the coefficient of uniformity, Cu, and the
coefficient of curvature, Cz. Well (broadly) graded soils are defined in the USCS
as:
Cu ≥ 4
and
1 ≤ Cz ≤ 3
Cu < 4
and/or
1 > Cz > 3
Figure 5.1.4-1 is a gradation plot that illustrates these two groups of soil gradation.
This design standard will use the more generic broadly graded and uniformly
graded terminology.
Two other terms used to describe the gradation of a soil are gap graded and skip
graded. These terms essentially mean the same thing and describe the condition
when a range of grain sizes are missing from a gradation. The terms came into use
upon observation of the gradation test results where some sieves would have little
or no soil particles retained. Figure 5.1.4-2 is a gradation plot that illustrates this
soil type. This design standard will use the term gap graded for these types of soils.
Historically, the terms filter and drain have held different meanings by different
authors, and their use as both nouns and verbs has led to even further confusion.
Filter material, when designed using the guidance in this design standard, provides
both particle retention and drainage in embankment dams. Therefore, a single
material can retain or filter particle movement from a base soil and may also have
sufficient permeability to act as a drain. Since the designed material performs both
functions, the terms have become interchangeable, especially in relation to where
the material is used in the embankment cross section. This has led to some authors
using the word drain for a filter and vice versa. Others have chosen to combine the
terms into filter/drain, filter-drain, and filter and drain.
Typically, the distinction between these terms can be made based on the stage the
material satisfies. As described later, a first-stage filter protects the base soil, and
its primary function is particle retention. In many instances, a second-stage
material will also be used, and its primary function is to provide drainage. While
both materials meet particle retention and drainage criteria, the emphasis of the first
stage is on particle retention, and the emphasis of the second stage is on drainage.
In accordance with this philosophy, this design standard will use the term filter in
the context of embankment zones as the first-stage material. In a similar manner,
the term drain will be used for zones that function as second-stage material. As an
example, for a two-stage chimney, the first stage would be the chimney filter and
the second stage would be the chimney drain. For cases in which both stages are
present, the term filter/drain will be used.
As far as nomenclature used for algebraic variables, both Terzaghi and Sherard
have used lower case “d” to represent the particle size diameter of the base soil and
capital “D” for the particle size diameter of the filter material. This nomenclature
has been repeated by many authors and is commonly used today. This
nomenclature is satisfactory when designing a single filter, but confusion arises
when designing two-stage filters since the filter from the first stage becomes the
base for the second stage. Therefore, this design standard will use the following
nomenclature.
DXXY
Where:
D = Particle diameter
XX = Percent by weight particles finer than particle diameter, D
Y = Material designation where:
B = Base
F = Filter (first stage)
E = Envelope or other drainage element (second stage)
Example:
5.1.5 Scope
This design standard applies to naturally occurring earth materials or to filters
manufactured from such natural earth materials by grading, screening, washing,
and crushing. This standard covers design principles and filter criteria including
quality, flow into pipes, zone geometries, and construction considerations.
Filters of woven or nonwoven fabrics are generally not recommended for use as
protective filters and are excluded from this chapter. They are covered under
Filters are used to prevent movement of soil particles from or between various
zones and foundations of embankment dams. Approximately 50 percent of all
dam failures are attributed to excess seepage. These failures are progressive in
nature and begin with the erosion of a few grains of soil, usually undetected. The
loss of those soil grains leads to greater seepage, which leads to more soil erosion.
This process continues until it is noticed, but often by this time, it is too late to
intervene to hopefully prevent complete failure of the dam.
It is known that many dams crack, are sometimes poorly constructed, may be
constructed from highly erodible material, or may have foundation conditions that
allow large amounts of underseepage. These conditions are known to produce the
potential for severe distress that can lead to eventual failure of dams. Therefore,
design elements such as filters are used as a defensive measure to protect these
types of structures from the less than desirable conditions that may exist or
develop over the life of the structure. This design standard presents the proper
design of filters and their use in embankment dams.
The filter design criteria presented here can be applied to the design of a wide
variety of granular filters and drains that are included as elements for many
hydraulic structures. While the criteria and procedures in this chapter were
initially developed for use in embankment dams, they can also be used for
drainage elements under spillway slabs, protection of levees against blowout,
design of riprap bedding, as well as many other applications.
The design challenge for an embankment dam is to develop a safe cross section
that can be constructed from materials available to the site at minimum
construction and maintenance costs. Economical design requires the use of
materials that protect against failure yet are easily constructed. Since filter
materials are some of the most costly materials used in a dam, effort is made to
minimize the amount of material used. Therefore, the balance of cost,
constructability, and reliability go hand in hand in providing an economically safe
structure.
Soil particle movement can occur through two basic mechanisms: backward
erosion piping and internal erosion. Backward erosion piping occurs when soil
particles are detached at the seepage exit or seepage discharge face of
intergranular seepage (water seeping through the pores of the soil). Internal
erosion occurs when soil particles are detached by flow in a concentrated leak
(such as a crack) from erosion along the sides of the crack or opening. Filters
provide protection against these two mechanisms developing into a concentrated
(large) leak that could cause excessive loss of water or failure of the structure.
A properly designed filter consists of a soil gradation with void (pore) size
openings small enough to prevent migration of the base soil. At the same time, a
properly designed filter will be sufficiently pervious to offer little resistance to
water flow.2
5.1.6 Applicability
These filter criteria can be applied to the design of a wide variety of filters and
drains that are included as elements specified for any hydraulic structure where
excessive uplift pressures may lead to particle migration, boiling, and internal
erosion; where seepage flows require control and direction; where the phreatic
surface must be controlled below a certain level; where exit gradients must be
reduced to an acceptable maximum; where reduction of pore water pressures is
required; and where erosion protection is necessary. Interconnected filters become
an internal drainage system that functions to protect the structure. The range of
hydraulic structures that may require drains includes, but is not restricted to,
embankment dams, dikes, levees, slope protection, upstream diaphragms,
foundations and abutments, outlet conduits, stilling basins, retaining walls, and
canal linings. The filter criteria can be used to design filters in contact with
cohesionless soils or cohesive soils, and upon or adjacent to rock. Soil types
include all those normally defined by the USCS and Reclamation’s Earth
Manual [1]. While these criteria were originally developed for new dam design and
construction, they can also be used for existing dams. These criteria are also
applicable for use in checking filter compatibility (criteria are met) of two zones in
an existing structure.
2
There are special cases in which water flow (drainage) is not critical, such as in transition
zones. Such zones are often in a benign section of the dam.
5.1.7 Acknowledgements
This revision is based on the earlier work of Reclamation authors Thomas
McDaniel and Perry Hensley. Some sections of this revision are based on the work
produced for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Manual,
Filters for Embankment Dams – Best Practices for Design and Construction [2].
That manual was a joint effort by Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Specific
recognition goes to James Talbot (retired NRCS) for the sections on geotextiles and
David Hammer (retired, USACE) for contributions on construction practice.
Cindy Gray of Reclamation’s Client Support and Technical Presentations Office
produced most of the figures.
3
Defect as used in this chapter includes cracks, poorly compacted lifts, coarse grained lifts or
layers, or other anomalies.
by a filter, the energy of the water moving through the soil may be adequate to
dislodge and remove particles at the discharge face. One factor that governs the
flow of water through soil is the seepage gradient which is the change in total
head between two locations divided the seepage path length (usually where it
outlets to the atmosphere or into another zone). Each soil will have a critical
gradient based on its properties where, if exceeded at the discharge point, soil
particles will be eroded away with the flowing water.
Generally for silts and clays having a plasticity index (PI) greater than about 7,
very high gradients (> 100) are required to initiate backward erosion piping4.
These gradients are usually not achieved in conventional embankment dams and
embankment dam foundations.
For cohesionless soils (PI < about 7), and particularly nonplastic soils, much
lower gradients will initiate backward erosion piping. The critical gradient in
these soils is dependent on uniformity of particle size, mass and size of particles,
and density. Soils comprised of particles of fine, uniformly graded sand with no
cohesive binder (typically classified as SP or SP-SM) are susceptible to being
detached because of low particle mass and lack of interparticle attraction. Larger
sand particles or gravels are more resistant to particle detachment because of their
greater mass. Broadly graded sands are more resistant to backward erosion piping
because the small particles cannot easily migrate through the soil body because
they are blocked by larger particles in the mass. Soils that have been compacted
or are otherwise naturally dense usually have more resistance to backward erosion
piping.
Granular filter material is placed in contact with a surface of the base soil where
seepage water will be percolating through the pores of the soil. During
construction, compaction is used to ensure a positive contact between the filter
and the base soil. This is known as supporting the discharge face. Due to the
nature of the granular filter particles and the way these zones are constructed, the
sand applies a positive pressure against the soil discharge face. Figure 5.1.9-1
illustrates how the filter in contact with the soil discharge face provides support
and prevents soil movement.
4
Except for the case of dispersive soils where a much lower gradient can initiate erosion.
Filters are also designed to prevent particle movement from internal erosion along
cracks, anomalies, or defects in the embankment. Preferential flow paths can
occur in earth embankments, their foundations, or at contacts between the fill and
concrete structures or bedrock. In this mechanism of soil erosion, soil particles
are detached by slaking along the preferential flow path (i.e., along the walls of a
crack in the base soil), and the soil is subsequently eroded by water flowing at
relatively high velocity (compared to the velocity of flow in intergranular flow).
The eroded particles are then carried through the preferential flow path to the
filter face. Most soils are subject to erosion from this mechanism, and modern
filter criteria also control this type of erosion. Figures 5.1.9-2, 5.1.9-3, and
5.1.9-4 illustrate the way in which a filter works to prevent internal erosion [3].
Figure 5.1.9-2. Eroding soil in the crack is caught at the filter face,
stopping flow in the crack. High gradients cause hydraulic
fracturing from the crack to the adjacent filter.
Figure 5.1.9-3. Eroding soil from a crack has been caught at the
filter face, and hydraulic fracturing from high gradients between
water in the crack and the adjacent filter has caused some widening
of the cake on the filter on either side of the crack.
Figure 5.1.9-4. Eroding soil from the crack has been caught at the
filter face, and hydraulic fracturing from the high gradients between
water in the crack and the adjacent filter has caused further
widening of the cake on the filter until the gradient is reduced. The
filter cake having a very low permeability covers the width of the
crack and some distance on each side of the crack. The remaining
filter is open for collecting seepage flow through the pores of the
soil between cracks.
During construction and during the first few years of service, particularly the first
filling of the reservoir, settlement occurs in the dam and foundation.5 Differential
settlement can occur over short distances due to differing settlement
characteristics of foundation soils or abutments with variable or steep slopes.
These movements in the dam cause stress release. The stress release may be both
in the horizontal as well as the vertical direction. Vertical stress release is caused
by arching between two or more locations that do not settle as much as a location
between them. An outlet works conduit through an embankment is usually a
vulnerable location for stress release and cracking. Since the conduit passes all
the way through the dam in a transverse direction, it is a particularly critical area
for cracking and concentrated leak development. In addition to transverse cracks,
longitudinal cracks can also develop due to differential settlement or slope
instability. Longitudinal cracking is typically not as serious as transverse
cracking due to common seepage paths through dams.
Internal erosion may also initiate in zones of poor compaction or lifts that are
coarser than specified. Other zones of poor compaction can occur in exposed
surfaces during winter shutdown, diversion gaps, and transverse joints. Openings
may result along structures or penetrations through the dam around which the
earthfill is poorly compacted. The zone under the haunches of pipes that do not
have structural cradles or concrete encasement6 is a common location for voids
and poor compaction. Animal burrows and root holes are also possible causes of
openings in embankments.
5
Note that flood control dams may not fill until many years after they are constructed. Since
they have not received this critical first filling, they should be considered “new” until that time.
6
Proper treatment of the haunches is required by this design standard.
5.2 Applications
The use of protective filters in embankment dams should be the rule rather than
the exception. This chapter will address the issues related to the use of filters and
the different types of filters used in dams. It is recognized that the cost of filter
material, and how that contributes to the overall project cost, is an important
issue, especially for smaller dams. For these dams, particularly in remote areas,
the cost of filter materials can be a significant portion of the total project cost. In
the interest of reducing costs, the designer may feel pressured to reduce or even
eliminate the use of filter material. While cost is an important issue, the need to
provide a safe structure should not be ignored.
Historically, many small dams (<50 feet high) have been built without any filter
or drainage zones, especially those constructed prior to 1980. Additionally, many
mid-size dams (50 to 300 feet high) have been built without “modern” filters,
although they do contain graded transition zones. Many of the dams in each of
these categories have performed successfully for many decades. On the other
hand, there have been notable dam failures, including all dam sizes, that have
resulted in loss of life and extensive property damage. The failure of dams built
without filters led to the general design practice for embankments to change in the
1970s. While mid-size and large dams, which are almost always high-hazard
structures, are now constructed with extensive filter elements, some question the
level of protection required for small dams, primarily due to the cost issue. It
should be noted, however, that since the advent of the dam safety movement in
the late 1970s, the failure rate of embankment dams due to internal erosion has
remained about the same. The reason for this can be twofold. First, as dams age,
they deteriorate due to undetected internal erosion and, over time, eventually fail.
Second, smaller structures continue to be built without adequate filter protection
and fail upon first filling.
Often during safety evaluation of existing dams, questions arise about whether
filters should be added. Due to the satisfactory performance of many dams that
do not include filters, typically an identified deficiency must be present in these
dams to justify the addition of filters. Dams with conduit deficiencies would have
a protective filter diaphragm added. Seepage deficiencies through the foundation
can be addressed with the addition of a toe drain, and for embankment seepage
deficiencies, a chimney should be used. Additionally, for older dams in
metropolitan areas with a large downstream population, and associated
consequences, filter protection may be added even when no known deficiency has
been identified.
The following two sections describe, in general, filter protection as it is used for
new and existing dams. A specific description of embankment elements is
presented in section 5.2.2.
The core zone of the embankment is nonplastic (PI < 7). Soils are not
available to construct a core zone in the dam and a rolled fill cutoff
trench with higher PI values.
The ratio of the depth of water measured from the maximum water
surface to the width of the impervious core at the same depth is 2.0 or
more. That is, the gradient through the core is greater than 2.0.
Hydraulic fracture of the core zone is possible, based on the potential for
arching of zones in the embankment.
Dams on rock foundations where the geologic processes over time have
resulted in tensile zones near the rock surface (pull apart).
Table 5.2.1.1-1 summarizes conditions and types of filter used to protect against
these conditions. Note that the listed conditions are independent of one another
and, if multiple conditions are present at a site, then combinations of filter types
will be required.
Table 5.2.1.1-1 Conditions encountered in embankment dam zones and how they
are protected by filters
Possible Type of filter
Feature Condition consequences needed
Embankment Impervious core composed Particle erosion, Chimney,
of nonplastic (PI ≤ 7) cracking blanket, toe
materials, excluding drain
dispersive soils (see below)
Embankment Composed of dispersive Particle erosion Chimney,
and/or foundation clays blanket, toe
drain
Embankment Impervious core composed Cracking Chimney,
of plastic materials blanket, toe
drain
Foundation Composed of erodible Particle erosion Blanket, toe
without cutoff materials drain
Embankment Potential for differential Vertical cracking in Chimney,
and/or foundation settlement of impervious impervious core blanket, toe
core1 drain
Embankment Hydraulic fracturing of Horizontal cracking Chimney,
impervious core2 in impervious core blanket, toe
drain
Foundation Artesian pressure Particle erosion, Blanket, toe
blowout of toe drain
Embankment Structural penetration by Cracking, particle Conduit
conduit erosion diaphragm
Foundation Pervious materials Particle erosion Blanket, toe
drain
Foundation Highly jointed/fractured Particle erosion Blanket, toe
rock drain
Embankment Seismic loading and/or Cracking Chimney,
and/or foundation locations on active faults blanket, toe
drain
Foundation Tensile zones near the Cracking Chimney,
bedrock surface blanket, toe
drain
Embankment Founded on pervious Particle erosion Choke (see
foundation materials section 5.2.4)
1
Conditions that can cause differential settlement include steep and/or irregular abutment profiles
and problematic foundation conditions such as discontinuous strata and strata composed of
materials of varying thicknesses and composition. Generally, differential settlement ratios of 1 foot
per 100 feet are considered problematic.
2
Usually due to arching of impervious core between adjacent zones that are composed of
Slope protection
Chimney filter
Blanket filter
Toe drain
Figure 5.2.1.2-1. Simple cross section showing a chimney used in a new dam.
Existing Dam
Slope protection
H
Stability berm
> H
Chimney filter 2
embankment crosses an active fault, offset can be even more severe. The
estimation of the magnitude of either type of offset is beyond the scope of this
chapter, but a conservative factor of safety for filter width should be used. Filter
widths more than two times the maximum expected offset are recommended.
Once the minimum thickness based on construction considerations has been met,
the thickness or width can be determined if the quantity of flow resulting from
seepage or cracking is known. For major designs, this flow quantity can be
computed by methods presented in Reclamation Design Standard No. 13,
Chapter 8 - Seepage [4] or methods presented by Cedergren [5]. The width
should be conservative so that a factor of safety is provided against unknown
geotechnical conditions, inaccuracies in design parameters, deficient construction
practice, etc.
In most cases, the vertical extent of filter protection in a dam (chimney) should be
to the crest of the dam. Some designers may prefer to end the chimney at the
elevation of the maximum normal pool elevation, also known as the top of active
conservation (TAC). This practice is also appealing due to difficulties in
constructing a chimney in the narrowest portion of the embankment. The
argument against this practice is that the most likely location of cracks in
a dam is at the crest, so chimneys should be taken to that elevation. In cases
where freeboard exists above the maximum flood pool elevation, to provide
protection against wave runup during maximum flood events, the chimney can be
terminated at the maximum flood pool elevation.
The most commonly used categories of filter and drainage zones used in design of
embankments are described in this section. Some designs will include only one
component or category of filter and drainage zone, but most designs will include
several.
Impervious
core
Transition zone Chimney drain
Riprap and bedding Chimney filter
Downstream shell
Impervious Upstream
blanket shell Seepage stability berm
Cutoff
trench
Blanket Drainage ditch
Cutoff wall Toe Relief well
Trench drain Drain
filter trench
Figure 5.2.2-1. Typical embankment dam design elements found in a central core
design.
Impervious Core – Zone of low permeability soil that acts as the water
barrier in the dam.
Upstream Shell – Zone of higher strength soil to support the upstream face
of the core. The geometry of the upstream core is sometimes dependent
on the rapid drawdown loading case.
Chimney Drain – Zone that carries away seepage coming through the
chimney filter and delivers it to the blanket drain. It also acts as a
transition zone between the chimney filter and the downstream shell.
Usually, this zone is composed of gravel-size particles.
Chimney Filter – Zone that protects the core from internal erosion and
cracking. Usually, this zone is composed of sand-size particles.
Riprap and Bedding – Riprap is the rock layer that protects the upstream
slope of the dam against erosion caused by reservoir wave action.
Bedding under riprap protects against particle movement of the protected
zone after reservoir drawdown.
Toe Drain – Collects water from the blanket drain, as well as any
foundation seepage, and safely conveys it away from the embankment.
Impervious Blanket – Extends the seepage path and increases the head loss
zone for dams on pervious foundations when a cutoff under the dam is not
practical. Upstream blankets are integrated into the core of the dam.
Cutoff Wall – Vertical water barrier. Cutoff walls are used as the cutoff
through soil foundations or pervious rock such as highly fractured rock.
Cutoff walls are usually deep trenches backfilled with cement-bentonite,
soil-bentonite, concrete, etc.
Another type of zone often used in modern dam designs is a filter diaphragm
around a conduit extending through an embankment. This category of zone is
described later in this section.
Many embankment designs for seepage control include both foundation and
embankment filter/drainage zones that work together to provide a complete
system. In addition to filter and drainage zones, most designs employ various
methods to intercept seepage and reduce the quantity of flow and hydraulic
gradient.
In the past, some dams have been constructed with the core located in the
upstream one-third of the cross section, and in some cases, the core is quite thin,
5.2.2.3 Chimneys
Chimney filters are used to protect an impervious core from potential internal
erosion failures and, at the same time, effectively control the phreatic surface
through the embankment. A typical chimney under construction is shown in
photo 5.2.2.3-1. The use of a chimney drain is dependent on the expected amount
of seepage through the core; cracking potential, especially related to seismic
loading; and composition of the downstream shell. If the downstream shell is not
filter compatible with the filter (as defined by the filter criteria in this design
standard), a transition zone or chimney drain will be required. In many situations
in the Western U. S., rockfill is used for shell material due to its high strength and
low cost. In this situation, an additional zone or zones may be required between
the chimney drain and the shell. Since the drainage function has been met by the
chimney drain, these zones are usually called transition zones. Particle retention
criteria should be met between these transition zone(s) and the shell.
Vertical and inclined geometries are commonly used for design of filter and
chimney drains in an embankment dam. Note that while a vertical geometry is
similar in appearance to a traditional house chimney, inclined geometries are also
called chimneys. The type of geometry used is a function of the dam size,
construction method, and core geometry as described in the next sections.
Section 5.8 includes discussion of construction considerations for these two
geometries.
Vertical chimneys are used most often where impervious core material is scarce
and the downstream slope of the core is vertical. Additionally, vertical chimneys
are sometimes used where the dam is a homogenous impervious structure where
the chimney is constructed by the trenching method as described in section 5.8.
The primary advantage of a vertical chimney is that maintaining proper location
during construction is more straightforward and dependable than when
constructing an inclined chimney. This results in being able to specify a smaller
width (say 4 or 5 feet), which requires less material.
For use in this design standard, filter width is defined as the horizontal
measurement across the filter. The filter thickness is defined as the measurement
normal to the slope. For the special case of vertical filters, the thickness equals
the width.7 When filters are placed against a slope, the width is always greater
than the thickness. The difference between width and thickness increases as the
slope becomes flatter. Narrow widths on flat slopes can lead to small thickness,
which can be problematic due to the “Christmas tree” effect described later.
When a filter is being designed to address seismic issues, the size of the filter is
controlled by the maximum deformation expected from the seismic event.
Deformations come from foundation fault displacement, slope failure, foundation
or embankment liquefaction in existing dams, and nonliquefaction settlement of
the embankment or foundation. Generally, filter size should be at least twice as
large as the expected deformation (horizontal or vertical). This criterion applies
regardless of the size of the dam.
Vertical filters are typically placed using some type of moveable form or spreader
box.8 The arrangements vary, and some are proprietary technology. Vertical
filters can also be constructed using the “trench back method.” In the trench back
method, several lifts of adjacent earthfill are placed, and then a trench is
excavated through this fill. The trench is typically 2 to 3 feet wide and not deeper
than 3 feet (for worker safety). The trench is then backfilled with horizontal lifts.
The trenching and backfilling procedure is repeated until the entire height of the
chimney is completed. It should be noted that contamination may be more likely
with this method, and the method results in vertical contacts. When constructing
zones of differing moduli (stiffness), differential settlement can occur, which can
lead to arching across the chimney.
7
For additional discussion, see section 5.8.1.
8
For additional discussion, see section 5.8.2.
When narrow inclined zones are used, the designer should realize that placement
procedures do not result in straight interfaces between filter drains and
surrounding zones and many have more of a “Christmas tree” appearance as
shown in figure 5.8.1-3. The specified minimum width should account for the
“Christmas tree” configuration to ensure adequate drainage capacity. Also, the
specifications should prohibit the use of construction equipment and placement
methods that allow serious segregation9 to occur.
A conduit filter diaphragm is that portion of a chimney filter that encases the
structure. In the case when a conduit is being repaired or replaced in an existing
dam, the diaphragm will have limited horizontal and vertical extent. Filter
diaphragms are used in situations in which filter protection needs to be added to
existing structures, as described in section 5.2.5. It should be noted that when a
chimney is used in an embankment cross section, it will surround any conduits,
and a specific filter diaphragm is not needed. The filter diaphragm surrounds a
conduit passing through the embankment, and its purpose is to intercept
intergranular seepage along the embankment/conduit interface and prevent
9
For additional discussion, see section 5.8.3.
Photo 5.2.2.4.1-1. Embankment dam breached after piping along the conduit. The
view is upstream. Note precast concrete pipe placed on a concrete cradle that did
not completely fill the haunch and the use of seepage collars. Note that the cradle
only partially fills the haunch.
Figure 5.2.2.4.2-1. Filter protection used in the embankment section as it abuts the
concrete section of a composite dam.
Photo 5.2.2.4.3-1. Filter and drainage zones to provide pressure relief and drainage
of backfill next to training wall for a spillway chute. (Photo courtesy of NRCS,
Texas.)
5.2.3.1 Blankets
Blankets may be included in embankment designs both to collect seepage from
foundation horizons and to provide an outlet for seepage collected by a chimney
filter/drainage zone. Since a blanket is at the interface between the embankment
and foundation, it could be classified as either an embankment or foundation
element, but for this standard, it is grouped with foundation.
Blankets must provide filter compatibility between foundation soils or bedrock that
is not filter compatible with the overlying embankment. A properly designed
blanket will protect finer embankment soils from internal erosion into underlying
coarser foundation soils or bedrock with joints and fractures as shown in photo
5.2.3.1-1. It can also protect foundation soils from internal erosion into a coarser
overlying embankment zone.
Photo 5.2.3.1-1. Pressure washing joints and fractures in bedrock prior to dental
grouting and covering with a blanket under the downstream shell of a dam. (Photo
courtesy of NRCS.)
When a chimney is included and there is no clear path for discharge, such
as a sand and/or gravel layer, a blanket drain must be included.
Photo 5.2.3.1-2. Filter being placed on the bedrock surface under the downstream
shell of an embankment. View is toward downstream toe. Conduit is to the right of
the photograph. Exposed bedrock not yet covered is in the background behind
trackhoe. (Photo courtesy of NRCS, Alabama.)
Photo 5.2.3.1-4. Filter placed over gravel blanket shown in photo 5.2.3.1-3.
(Photo courtesy of NRCS, Alabama.)
Assuming that capacity requirements have been met, the minimum practical
thickness per stage is about 18 inches with a total desired thickness of not less than
36 inches. On steeper terrain or slopes, this may require special equipment and
placement techniques, as well as more intense inspection than normal. When
considering these concerns, the more prudent choice is often a thicker blanket. This
reasoning also applies to filter/drains and transitions on the slopes of impervious
cutoff zones, toe drain trenches, etc.
Designing filter and drainage elements for coarse foundations can be problematic
due to the many unknowns that exist even after extensive site characterization
studies. Photo 5.2.3.1-5 shows a foundation of a dam built in 1920. While seepage
performance and geologic exploration indicated a pervious foundation, the amount
of open work observed after excavation remained surprising. This problem is
especially difficult for new dams because initial reservoir filling will be the first
loading condition. Experience has shown that it is easy to underestimate seepage
that flows through these types of foundations. Techniques for estimating these
flows have changed over time, mostly due to computational advancements.
Whether the estimate is made by hand calculation or by computer, the material
property assumptions will dictate whether or not an a reasonably accurate
prediction is made [8].
Open work
foundation in
an existing
dam.
Toe drains should consist of a perforated pipe surrounded by a gravel drain which,
itself, is surrounded by a sand filter. This arrangement is known as a two-stage toe
drain. An example of a two-stage toe drain is presented in figure 5.2.3.2-1. While
foundation conditions vary, this arrangement is considered the minimum necessary
for an effective drain. In the case of pervious foundations, the importance of
collecting seepage and, more importantly, reducing hydrostatic pressure cannot be
overemphasized. For pervious foundations, it will be tempting to cut costs, and
since drains are high-cost items, they may be the focus of such efforts. As
described in Section 5.4.1.6, “Filter Barriers,” such an approach can lead to a design
that does not achieve the goal of pressure reduction and, in the case of modification
to existing dams, can make the existing situation worse. Single stage toe drains (a
drain consisting of only filter sand and a drain pipe) may also be considered in the
interest of minimizing costs. Again, single stage toe drains are not recommended
due to uncertainties in foundation conditions and structure performance upon first
filling.
While toe drains transfer and discharge seepage away from the dam, they also are
important features for the monitoring of embankment dams. Monitoring of dams is
important because as dams age, their performance may change. A design flaw or
mistake made during construction can go undetected for years, or even decades, and
monitoring will aid in the long-term performance of the structure. Toe drains
permit three key observations in such a monitoring program: flow measurement,
detection of cloudy seepage, and sediment (soil particle) accumulation. All three
can be achieved in an inspection well installed either at the discharge end of the toe
drain or along the toe drain alignment. An inspection well generally consists of a
flow measurement device (either a weir or a flume) and a sediment trap upstream of
the measurement device. Details of toe drains and inspection well configuration
can be found in appendix E.
Self-propelled video cameras can be used to examine and record the condition of
drainpipes. Video surveys are invaluable during construction and periodic dam
safety examinations. Due to cable length and tractive ability of the unit, access
locations along the drain should not be greater than 500 feet. If turns or large
grades are present, this distance may need to be less. Angles through fittings should
not be greater than 22.5° for camera and cleaning equipment access [40].
Drainpipe should be laid at a uniform grade without sags or bends. Sags can lead to
the pipe flowing full through the sag, which can lead to recharge of the foundation
and backing up water into the section prior to the sag. When drainpipes are
constructed on soft, heterogeneous foundations, differential settlement may occur,
which can also lead to sags. If such conditions are expected, the pipe size should be
increased so that the calculated flow depth is no more than 25 percent of the pipe’s
interior diameter.
A condition that should be considered when toe drains are added to or replaced in
existing dams is the potential for an increase in gradient under the dam. At sites
where hydrostatic pressure is near or above the ground surface, the addition of a toe
drain will decrease that pressure. However, it should be noted that the differential
head between the reservoir and downstream toe will increase. This increase in
differential head will lead to an increase in gradient through the foundation and
subsequently increase the chance for particle movement over existing conditions.
vertical side slopes are less expensive since they require less excavation and
processed backfill. Complications exist for the construction of two-stage toe drains
in small spaces. One method used to eliminate such problems is the use of a “dog
house” form that allows the introduction of the filter and drain material separated
by a moveable form as shown in photo 5.2.3.2.1-1. Note that care needs to be taken
to place sufficient material under the haunch of the pipe in order to provide
adequate support.
Photo 5.2.3.2.1-2.
Trapezoidal
foundation trench
drain at toe of
embankment.
Coarse inner filter
(envelope)
surrounds
perforated
collector pipe, and
the fine filter
provides filter
compatibility with
foundation souls.
In the last two decades, corrugated HDPE pipe was a popular choice for
Reclamation toe drain construction. In the late 1990s, video examination of
Reclamation toe drains showed that a number of these installations were exhibiting
some form of distress, ranging from minor deformation to complete collapse. Most
of these cases were single-wall corrugated HDPE, which has been found to
experience strength loss with time. Due to the high number of structural failures
and lack of laboratory data on the strength of perforated versus nonperforated
plastic pipe, Reclamation undertook a study to evaluate these products [11]. That
study found that perforated corrugated pipe (PVC or HDPE) had the same load
carrying capacity as nonperforated pipe since the strength of the pipe comes from
the outside corrugations, which are not perforated. The study also demonstrated
that perforated solid pipe has a diminished strength in relation to nonperforated pipe
and showed that some PVC products are brittle. The report also addressed
installation issues, commonly available perforation sizes, and joint types for the
different products. Since failure of pipes that were designed based on static
conditions (overburden) has occurred, it is thought that construction loads are the
more critical loading condition.
Joints for corrugated HDPE and PVC pipes are typically bell and spigot or butt
joint with a collar. Gaskets are available for most of these joint types so they are
watertight. The greater concern is proper field installation. If pipe ends or couplers
are damaged or get dirty prior to connection, marrying the pipe segments in the
field can be difficult. Frustrated workers may struggle with a pipe connection and
give up prior to the joint being completely closed. Recent video inspections have
shown that poor joint connections are as much of a problem as crushing in the
central section.
Photo 5.2.3.2.3-1. 1950s era concrete pipe used as a toe drain. Water enters the
pipe through a gap left in the bell and spigot joints. A "Y" junction is shown with
two laterals that connect to a trunk line shown on the right side of the photo.
Since connectors were not manufactured for this configuration, pieces of broken
pipe were stacked together, making a protective cap for the junction. This junction
was exposed during excavation for a toe drain replacement.
Taking these factors into account, profile10 HDPE pipe is recommended for use in
toe drain applications. The advantages of this pipe type over all others are:
When a load carrying capability much greater than that needed for
overburden is used, the pipe is more likely to withstand poor or incorrect
installation methods.
10
Profile pipe is the typical pipe geometry with a smooth interior surface and smooth exterior
surface.
Almost all perforated collector pipes that have been in service for a period of time
will have some amount of material in the pipe invert or contain some kind of
clogging in the perforations consisting of algae, roots, or sediment. Since power
washing is now commonly available, it is possible to flush out such pipes. Before
doing so, consideration should be given to whether the pipe will be damaged or an
erosion condition aggravated. If the drainage system design is of high quality, then
cleaning can be used. If the drains are of poor or unknown quality, cleaning should
be avoided since the system may have “self-healed” to a stable condition, and
cleaning it could reactivate material movement.
Relief wells have a distinct disadvantage in that they require ongoing maintenance
to rejuvenate their flow capacity. Iron ochre and chemical incrustations are a
plague to relief wells, and the cost to maintain their capacity must be factored into a
life cycle cost for their use. Due to this maintenance issue, as well as the
ineffectiveness of wells intercepting 100 percent of foundation flows, toe drains are
preferred as the pressure reduction measure for shallow applications.
counterintuitive since slurry trenches are often used to construct cutoff walls
through dams. The use of a bentonite slurry is also contrary to constructing a
drainage element that provides high permeability relative to the surrounding
foundation. To overcome these obstacles, a slurry trench method was developed
using a degradation technology [12, 13]. In this method, a synthetic biopolymer or
other organic admixture, such as guar gum, is used in place of the bentonite
admixture used in more common slurry applications. These admixtures are mixed
with water to produce a slurry that stabilizes the trench long enough to place the
filter or drain backfill. Biodegradation of the slurry then occurs, permitting the
trench to act as a flow interceptor. Shortcomings of this method include the
inability to visually inspect the trench, or to compact the backfill.
Additionally, older drainpipes do not have sufficient strength and will be cracked,
deformed (see photo 5.2.3.5-2), or completely collapsed. When the pipe begins to
fail, this leads to greater amounts of material entering the pipe and rendering many
systems completely clogged with foundation material as shown in photo 5.2.3.5-3.
Since many toe drain installations were installed with no consideration given to
future examination, video investigations can be complicated. Since “turns” were
typically installed, video cameras are not able to get past those points. Also, if the
drain was clogged with material, or crushed, examination is not possible.
Vegetation could also lead to problems with existing drainpipes. As a concentrated
source of water, drains are attractive to plant roots. In extreme cases, root growth
can completely clog a pipe, greatly reducing its flow potential as shown in
photo 5.2.3.5-4.
Typically, a deficiency is identified for the situation described above, and a safety
of dams modification is undertaken. Repair of existing drains is uncommon, and
total replacement is the more usual course of action. When replacing existing
drains, consideration should be given to the amount of flow collected by those
drains. While the pipe itself is in poor condition, and particle retention criteria are
not met, these conditions can result in attractive interception of ground water flow
at the expense of particle retention. Replacement of drains with a one-stage filter
that meets particle retention criteria, can result in significantly less interception of
seepage. This, in turn, can result in higher pressures and, possibly, seepage from
the ground surface—a situation that did not occur prior to the repair.
Photo 5.2.3.5-3. Clay tile pipe from 1916 as it was exposed during
excavation. Note that the pipe was completely clogged with silt and sand.
Pipe
Roots
Photo 5.2.3.5-4. During modification of a dam, this toe drain pipe was exposed
during excavation. The pipe was completely clogged with the root ball shown in
the foreground. It was noted that a tree was growing over the toe drain, and the
drain was probably a water source in this arid region of central Oregon.
Drainage filters (class I).—A filter whose purpose is to intercept and carry
away the main seepage within a dam and its foundation. These filters may
have to remove large amounts of seepage for dams on pervious foundations
or dams of poor construction. The filters consist of uniformly graded
materials, typically in two stages. The filter must meet the requirements for
both particle movement and drainage. Toe drains typically fall into this
class.
Crack stoppers (class IV).— The function of this type of filter is to protect
against cracks that may occur in the embankment core, especially caused by
seismic loading and/or large deformations. Strictly speaking these are not
filters as described in this design standard although many of the same
principles apply. The dimensions of this class of filter are controlled by
expected displacement (horizontal or vertical). While there is no
permeability requirement for this type of filter, it should be relatively free of
fines so that the crack stopper itself does not sustain a crack. Due to
cementation, it may not be practical to obtain an uncrackable first stage
filter (sand), so a second stage (gravel) filter may be required. Second stage
filters may also be required for transition to a coarser shell material. This
class of filter or transition zones can be used either upstream or downstream
of the core. Their use is recommended when significant seismic loadings
are present.
A summary of these filter classes and their requirements is given in table 5.2.4-1.
The stage, gradation, and permeability issues are described in more detail later in
this design standard.
Conduits on soil foundations require filter protection around the entire conduit.
Exposing a conduit and adding a filter to only the sides and top will leave the
foundation under the conduit unprotected. Piping channels can form under
conduits, and it is an ideal location for such development because the conduit will
act as a roof for the piping channel. A reliable method for filter placement under a
conduit is also needed because any gap or low density areas will render the
protection useless. Some methods have been proposed for addition of a filter under
a conduit that are considered unacceptable. Those methods are summarized in
table 5.2.5-1. When conduits are founded on rock, no filter is required under the
conduit. In a similar manner, conduits founded in rock trenches where the bottom
and side or sides of the conduit are poured against the rock, filters are not needed in
those locations.
In the interest of providing intimate contact between the filter and the bottom of the
conduit, a section of the conduit should be removed and reconstructed after filter
placement.
Figure 5.2.5.1-1. Typical filter addition around a conduit near the centerline of a
dam.
Figure 5.2.5.1-2. Typical filter addition around a conduit near the downstream toe
of a dam.
on a soil foundation
Step 1 Excavate around the conduit, exposing it in the area of filter placement.
Step 2 Sawcut through the conduit and demolish between the sawcuts.
Step 3 Excavate into the foundation under the conduit profile a minimum of 2 feet.
The trench width (measured upstream to downstream) should be greater
than 6 feet. The upstream and downstream side slopes should be 2H:1V or
flatter. An offset of at least 1 foot should be used between the top of the
excavation slope and the sawcut face.
Step 4 Inspect and accept foundation. Proof roll the foundation.
Step 5 Place the filter material in the bottom of the trench and compact. Check the
filter density with an inplace density test.
Step 6 Rebuild the conduit.
Step 7 Replace fill, including filter diaphragm around conduit. Construct stability
berm if required.
Since internal erosion failure modes along conduits are based on flow along the
outside of the conduit, the previous rules should be based on the outside or
maximum structural dimension. If the pipe is encased in concrete, or the pipe is set
in a concrete cradle, the outside dimension of the concrete should be used. For
conduits larger than 2.5 feet inside diameter that do not include seepage collars, the
minimum extent of filter protection should be at least 8 feet for the sides and top
and 4 feet under the conduit. The filter thickness (measured upstream to
downstream) generally should not be less than 8 feet. The larger dimensions for the
larger size conduits are primarily based on the equipment needed to construct these
features.
For existing conduits that include seepage collars, regardless of conduit size, the
extent of filter protection is defined by the size of the collar. In these cases, the
filter extent should generally not be less than 8 feet beyond the limit of the sides
and top of the seepage collar. The filter should extend no less than 4 feet below the
bottom extent of the collar. The intervening space between the outside of the
conduit and the outside edge of the seepage collar should also be filled with filter
material. This section also assumes that the existing conduit is founded on soil
deposits. For cases where the conduit is founded on rock see section 5.2.5.
11
It is assumed this size of conduit is a pipe. Larger conduits discussed later are typically
structures such as reinforced concrete outlet works conduits.
When flow in an element must take place without the buildup of appreciable head,
designers should make estimates of all quantities of seepage that will need to be
removed using chapter 8 of this design standard – Seepage, as well as appendix A
[14, 8, 15]. Designers should analyze the entire drainage system and make sure all
seepage can be adequately discharged through the entire system.
The criteria presented in this chapter are developed from Terzaghi, supplemented
by controlled laboratory tests and studies performed by Bertram [16]; Reclamation
[17, 18]; USACE Waterways Experiment Station [19, 20, 21]; Soil Conservation
Service [22]; Sherard, Dunnigan, and Talbot [23, 24], Sherard and Dunnigan [25],
and Fell and Foster [26].
The gradation range of base soil (protected soil) and protective filter/drain should
be plotted on a Gradation Test form (figure 5.3.1-1). A blank example of the form
is shown in figure 5.3.1-2. It is desirable to plot each gradation curve from all
samples from a base material on the same sheet. For example, plot on one sheet all
gradation curves of material that are to be used for an impervious zone. The typical
range of the impervious material, as well as outlier gradations (gradations that do
not fit within the typical range), can then be seen. The filter/drain is usually
designed to protect the typical range of the base soil12; criteria do not necessarily
need to be met for all outliers. If the filter/drain is for protecting a foundation soil,
the designer may have to choose the range of foundation materials to be protected.
This is discussed in more detail in section 5.4.1.
12
See section 5.4.1 for additional discussion.
Figure 5.3.1-1. Graphical representation of categories of base soils (see section 5.4.3 for
a description of base soil categories)
The designer should realize that even with the ratio of D15E to D85F set at 4, some
movement of fines13 from the first-stage filter into the second-stage filter (gravel
drain) may occur and could result in contamination of the second stage. This is
especially true if criteria for uniformity of the filter or drain are not met. This
contamination is likely to occur at changes in slopes, such as at chimney-to-blanket
transitions. Thicker zones and/or additional drainage features should be considered.
Also, a laboratory test should be performed to check whether the filtering capability
of the drain is adequate, and analyses should verify that the gradients in the
filter/drain are not excessively high. It should be noted that it can be difficult to
select D15 for coarse filters. In such cases, the grain size from the next lowest sieve
can be substituted for D15. The grain size curve of a filter does not have to be
parallel or similar in shape to the grain size curve of the base material (protected
material). Generally, a filter should be uniformly graded to provide adequate
permeability and prevent segregation during processing, hauling, and placing.
However, it should be noted that well-graded gravelly sand can be an excellent
filter for a very uniform silt or fine, uniform sand if segregation is avoided in
placement.
To help ensure adequate permeability in the filter, the percentage finer than the
No. 200 sieve for filters must not exceed 5 percent by weight after compaction (2
percent stockpile, 5 percent in-place after compaction). Generally, the additional
reduction in fines content may be necessary to increase permeability and reduce
filter cracking potential. The permeability of a filter should be at least 25 times that
of the base material. This criterion is generally met if D15F is larger than 5 times
D15B. The permeability (k) of uniformly to moderately graded sand and gravel
filters (coefficient of uniformity [Cu] generally 1.5 to 8) can be estimated by the
empirical equation:
k = 0.35 (D15F)2
where:
Also, other empirical relations using grain size can be used to estimate
permeability, such as the NRCS Soil Mechanics Note 9 (SM-9, March 1984) and
Cedergren [14].
5.3.2 Precautions
In applying filter design criteria, the designer should remember that the criteria
were determined in the laboratory under controlled, virtually ideal conditions.
13
These fines are what remain from the washing operation or particle breakdown from placing and
compacting operations.
These same conditions may not be matched by conditions in the field; moreover,
careful attention to achieve isotropy and homogeneity in the laboratory cannot be
matched in the field, either in the construction of the filters or the base material.
Further, as soon as the structure is placed in operation, the assumptions around
which the elements are designed begin to deviate further and further from field
conditions as weathering starts, sedimentation begins, bacterial growth occurs,
deposition or removal of soluble solids begins, and corrosion or deterioration
begins. These changes in conditions are difficult to evaluate in filter design and
might be called judgment factors that would cause the designer to modify the
criteria to fit anticipated field conditions during operation. Conservative designs
are prudent.
If the designer has any doubts concerning the filter’s performance, filter tests
should be conducted. For example, dispersive soils, very fine grained cohesionless
soils, highly plastic soils, and soils prone to desiccation may require extra
precautions. The criteria presented are considered adequate for these types of soils;
however, filter tests with the base soil and filter are still prudent. The methodology
presented in section 5.6.1.1 is recommended as guidance for testing the base soil
and filter for fine grained, problem soils. Material quality should also be examined
as described in section5.6.2.
When designing toe drains or other drainage collection systems for pervious
foundations where seepage is expected to be large, consideration should be given to
the permeability of the filter in relation to the permeability of the foundation as
described in appendix A. In situations where the foundation consists of interbedded
silts, sands, and gravels, the designer may elect to size the filter for the silt sizes.
This can result in a filter composed primarily of sand sizes being placed over the
gravel layers that carry the majority of seepage. This filter then acts as a barrier to
the flow in the gravel, resulting in poor seepage collection and high pore pressures.
If this issue cannot be resolved by adjusting the filter design (or improved
drainage), additional water barrier elements (i.e., a cutoff wall) may be required.
For economy and simplicity, single stage drainage elements are sometimes
considered. These drainage elements are a combination of sand and gravel and are
placed directly around the drainpipe. When evaluating this type of filter,
consideration should be given to internal stability (section 5.3.8) and plugging of
perforations within the drainpipe (see section 5.5.2 for a discussion of perforation
plugging). The designer should also be aware that a broadly graded sand and gravel
filter may have a lower permeability than a uniformly graded sand filter. Typically,
two-stage filter/drain combinations have higher permeability and are more efficient
in collecting seepage than single stage filters.
5.3.3 Cost
The design of a filter should result in the minimal cost necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the application and provide for reasonable anticipated construction
Another cost topic is single stage versus two stage (or greater) filter/drain systems.
For some projects, a single element may serve as both filter and drain. In others,
certainly including more critical and probably larger projects, two stage systems are
appropriate.
If the job is large and commercial sites are far from the work, or a “custom”
gradation is required, onsite processing may be the most economical. Due to the
number of variables, a borrow utilization study would be useful to evaluate whether
onsite processing or a commercial source is more economical.
For larger jobs that use dedicated processing, consideration should be given to the
various materials for production from the plant and their use within the design. For
example, for a given processing plant operation, equal amounts of filter and drain
material are produced, but a greater volume of filter is required in the work, leaving
some drain material not used. The design could be adjusted to increase the amount
of drain material while reducing the amount of filter. Excess drain material could
also be used for other features such as slope protection and riprap bedding.
14
Fuel prices that differ from those in 2001 will influence the break point.
In the 1980s, a filter criterion was developed [33] that confirmed Terzaghi’s
relationship of D15F/D85B but added a requirement in the relationship of D95B to
D15F. This additional requirement addresses internal stability, which is discussed in
section 5.3.8.
Significant work has been undertaken at the University of New South Wales [34,
35] related to studies of risk associated with embankment failure modes. This work
examined partial erosion and continuous erosion boundaries for increasingly coarse
gradation of filter against a number of base materials. The conclusion of the study
is that current criteria are adequate to ensure that no erosion initiates. Some
discussion is presented about filter compatibility between zones in existing dams,
and the reader may find this of interest, especially when considering partial or
continuous erosion in existing structures.
The criteria presented herein, which are based on the traditional Terzaghi filter
criteria and laboratory testing done by the Soil Conservation Service [23, 24], are
considered adequate, easier to use, and have a performance record not available for
recently proposed design procedures. In the last decade, Fell [32, 33] has
performed followup research to that done by Sherard and examined dispersive soils
more completely. Due to the sensitive nature of protecting dispersive soils, criteria
have been added to the procedure. Hence, for the present, these criteria will serve
as the basis for Reclamation designs.
Filter and drain materials should consist of clean, hard, durable, dense aggregate
that is free of any undesirable coatings or films, and it should be tested in the lab to
assess suitability for the application and the amount of processing needed to meet
the specified grain size limits as described in section 5.6.
It is also generally recognized that pit run material will be of higher quality than
crushed material. When the option is available pit run material is preferred over
crushed products.
sand particles in the uniformly graded sand is replaced by gravel particles in the
broadly graded mixture as shown in figure 5.3.6-1. The left side of the figure
illustrates spheres of two sizes representing a uniformly graded soil (example:
coarse sand). On the right side of the figure, three larger spheres overlay the
original figure and are shown in red. They represent the inclusion of gravel-size
particles, making the soil broadly graded. The figure illustrates that the larger
particles now replace previously available seepage space through voids, and that
lost space has been highlighted in blue. Note that the figure has not been corrected
for the larger particle’s edge to edge contact with the surrounding particles. The
elimination of void space in the broadly graded soil results in a lower permeability
[10].
There exist in nature some gap-graded and unstable, broadly graded base soils,
usually graded from clay to gravel sizes, such as some glacial tills, that are
internally unstable. In these types of materials, the fine portion of the soil may pipe
through the coarse portion. If a proposed filter is designed based on the total
gradation of the base soil, the filter will be too coarse, and the fines in the base soil
may pipe through the filter. This occurred in the materials in the downstream
section of Reclamation’s Steinaker Dam, causing sinkholes to form in the
downstream section of the embankment, shortly after first filling in the 1960s. For
these types of soils, the filter should be designed to protect the fine matrix of the
base soil rather than the total range of particle sizes. If filter design is based on the
minus No. 4 sieve size of the base soil, as indicated in section 5.4.2, this problem is
circumvented. Alternatively, several investigators have developed criteria for
determining if a base soil is internally unstable, as well as filter criteria for these
soils. The work of some of these investigators is summarized in the United States
Internal instability is the property of a soil whose void size exceeds the smallest
grain sizes within the gradation. That is, the smaller soil particles can move and be
redistributed into adjacent voids. Since this characteristic depends on the soil
gradation, it is present in naturally occurring as well as processed soils. The results
of research into internal instability are described in several technical publications
[32, 39]. While research has focused solely on soil gradation, it appears that
density, cementation, and loading (seepage or dynamic) are also important
considerations in determining whether or not soil particles will undergo
redistribution [34].
Internally unstable soils commonly will exhibit sinkholes as seen at Tarbela and
Keechelus Dams. Sherard [40] surmised that some form of discontinuity or defect
needed to be present in order for internal instability to be initiated. Such
discontinuities include borehole riser pipes, buried instrumentation, zones of low
density, and areas of high gradient. Figure 5.3.7-1 is an aid in identifying internally
unstable soils. Sherard obtained data on a variety of soils that were judged to be
internally unstable. He plotted a band [40] around these gradations as shown on
figure 5.3.7-1. Soil gradations plotting within this band are potentially internally
unstable. Another method to check for internal instability is to compare the slope
of the gradation curve against a constant slope line of the relationship Dpoint1 <
4*Dpoint2. This line is shown on figure 5.3.7-1 and is noted as “4x.” The slope of
this line is the important aspect of it, and the location on the plot is unimportant.
Any portion of a gradation curve that is flatter than this line indicates a potentially
unstable soil, whereas portions of the gradation curve steeper than the line indicate
a stable soil. This technique can also be used to evaluate gap-graded soils. Note
that the slope of the 4x line is roughly equal to the boundary slopes of Sherard’s
band.
As the name implies, dispersive clay minerals tend to “come apart” when immersed
in water, as opposed to flocculation (come together), which is seen in all other types
of clays. This disaggregation tends to make the individual “particles” smaller than
what is measured in standard gradation testing.15 Since the “particles” are smaller,
the retention rules based on a D15 size do not entirely apply. For this reason, a
different set of retention criteria, as described later in this chapter (see
table 5.4.4-1), is used than what is used for nondispersive soils.
15
Note that that common dispersants used in hydrometer tests (such as sodium
hexametaphosphate) do not deflocculated the clay particles in the same manner as seen in the
field.
are usually naturally occurring deposits since these filters are placed against natural
or excavated surfaces. Chimney filters are placed against earthfill as part of
original construction or existing embankment zones during embankment dam
modifications.
Several case histories in the last 10 years have demonstrated the importance of not
designing a filter that acts as a barrier to pervious foundation layers. This problem
is especially prevalent when multiple soil categories, as described in table 5.4.3-1
(shown later, in section 5.4.3), are present. This issue can be addressed to a certain
degree during base soil selection as described in greater detail in section 5.4.1.6.
Since foundation soils typically have greater variability than earthfill materials, as
described above, the base soil selection procedure is different for these two classes.
As would be expected, the more variable class has a longer list of characteristics
that need to be evaluated (see figure 5.4.1.7-2), and the less variable material is
simpler (see figure 5.4.1.7-1) (both figures shown later, in section 5.4.1.7).
from an existing dam, and figure 5.4.1.2-2 is a gradation plot of 19 samples of the
foundation material for that dam. The gradations fall within a number of soil
categories as described in section 5.4.3. For the core material of this example, all
samples are classified as Category 2 (40 to 85 percent fines), whereas the
foundation samples classify into Categories 2, 3, and 4. Since the filter design
procedure is based on designing for a single category the category must be selected.
While the previous paragraph addressed core material found at existing dams,
consideration for new construction is slightly different. Figure 5.4.1.2-3 illustrates
soil gradations taken from samples obtained from a borrow area intended for use as
impervious core material. Recognizing the uniformity of this borrow area, it is
reasonable to use the average gradation for filter design. While using a single
gradation to represent a material simplifies the filter design process, it can lead to
problems that are described later. In a similar manner, the assumption that the finer
side boundary of a band of gradations can act as a single conservative
representation of that band can also lead to difficulties. Use of an “average”
gradation to assign a base category should only take place when the borrow source
exhibits uniformity and sufficient exploration has been performed to substantiate
that assumption. Designing from the finer side of the band is described in more
detail in section 5.4.1.7.
Figure 5.4.1.2-3. Gradation plot of samples taken from a potential borrow source
for a core material with little variability.
As described in section 5.4.3, base soils are categorized according to their fines
content. Subsequent design calculations are dependent on this categorization, and
incorrect categorization can result in an improperly designed filter. Incorrect
categorization of soils can come from:
Incorrect sampling
Grouping two or more materially different soils into one geologic unit
Examination of the gradation indicates that the three subunits are not different,
based on grain size distribution, because none of the units can be grouped together
in a distinct band. Therefore, for the purpose of filter design, the three units can be
grouped together into one material, alluvium, as shown in figure 5.4.1.3-2.
The converse of the previous situation can also be true—geologic classification has
grouped together two soils that have different grain size distributions.
Figure 5.4.1.3-3 illustrates a cross section through an alluvial fan that has been
mapped as one geologic unit. Figure 5.4.1.3-4 includes the gradation plots for the
19 samples taken in an alluvial fan deposit and illustrates that two distinct
groupings exist based on gradation, within the samples, Base 1 and Base 2. The
Base 1 gradations are Category 2 soils, whereas the Base 2 soils are Category 3 and
4.
Figure 5.4.1.3-2. Geologic cross section of three alluvial deposits that is simplified to
one unit due to material uniformity.
Figure 5.4.1.3-3. Geologic cross section of a single alluvial fan deposit that is
separated into two distinct units due to differences in material gradation.
Figure 5.4.1.3-4. Gradation plot of alluvial fan material indicating two distinct units.
By going back to the drill logs, notice in the example that the six samples of Base 1
are in the upper portion of the fan, and the 13 samples of Base 2 are in the lower
portion. Therefore, the alluvial fan should be separated into two subunits for filter
design, Qaf1 and Qaf2. If the two bases were not separated, the filter design
procedure would result in a filter gradation for the Base 1 that would likely act as a
seepage barrier to the Base 2 soils. The barrier issue is described in more detail in
section 5.4.1.6. Also, note that if the samples were randomly distributed through
the fan, a separation could not be made.
when sufficient exploration is not undertaken. The sinuous nature of riverflow also
complicates the erosional and depositional process. Rivers flow in a sinuous or
serpentine course through their valleys. The extent of this “S” shape flow is a
function of the amount of energy that needs to be shed for the given grade.
Through geologic time, this serpentine path will cut across itself over and over.
These are the processes that lead to the convoluted depositional sequence illustrated
in figure 5.4.1.4-2.
While the previous example describes the method by which widely varying
deposits can occur in alluvium, similar deposits are also seen from glacial and
alluvial fan processes.
It should be noted that extent and continuity are difficult to ascertain for
undifferentiated deposits. One may conclude from drawing a simple upstream to
downstream cross section that a unit of particular interest is not continuous since it
is truncated by other materials. Consider the case where a gravel deposit is
identified but the cross section shows that it is truncated by silts and sands as shown
in figure 5.4.1.4-2. Since the gravel layer may actually have a serpentine
alignment, it would be incorrect to assume it is truncated as shown in the cross
section.
1. Incorrect sampling method (i.e., technician did not include larger test pit
material because it would not fit in the bag or was too heavy). See
section 5.6.2.1 for correct sampling procedures.
4. Sample was taken from near the ground surface (topsoil), which will be
removed during construction (stripping).
The designer should investigate these factors to ensure that the sample is valid for
inclusion in the data set. If an error is found, it should be corrected so that accurate
information is included in the data set. It is difficult to provide rules for exclusion
of outliers, but they are generally identified visually as illustrated in figure 5.4.1.5
1. Eliminated outliers should not be greater than 15 percent of the sample set. If it
is thought that greater than 15 percent of the sample set are outliers, the geologic
interpretation, as described in the previous sections, should be revisited.
Another error that can arise in categorizing soils is related to sampling errors. One
of the most common errors in this regard is the use of undersized samplers. The
commonly used split spoon sampler has an inside opening size of 1-7/8 inches,
indicating that it is unable to sample coarse gravel and cobbles. Omission of these
grain sizes can lead to incorrect base soil categorization and filter design, even with
regrading. Similar errors can occur with other, larger size samplers. The designer
should always check that the correct size sampler is used for the expected
exploration conditions. As described in section 5.7, the use of test pits is the
preferred exploration method for evaluation of base soils. Collecting bag samples
of materials obtained from these pits provides the most accurate base soil data, as
well as an indication of stratigraphy (layer) information that may not be detected
from drillhole data.
Caution should also be exercised to not utilize sample data that is distant from the
filter location. As an example, consider an exploration program executed across a
site in which samples are taken every 10 feet. In some drillholes, the first sample at
the ground surface could not be retrieved. Samples from the successful 10-foot
depth, as well as 20- and 30-foot depths, were tested and used to represent the
foundation soil (base soil). The construction of a 6-foot-deep toe drain is planned at
the site using these data. It should be recognized that this exploration program did
not address the upper 10 feet of the foundation, and that layer could be materially
different than what is seen lower. Therefore, this base soil could be misleading and
result in an incorrectly designed filter for the toe drain.
Drain
(GP)
GM Concrete sand GP GM
(SP) ML
GW GP
SP GP
GM SM
SP
GP
SM SM
SP SM
GP
GM
GW
Flow SP
Barrier
Figure 5.4.1.6-1. A filter for a toe drain that is acting as a barrier to a more pervious
foundation layer.
Figure 5.4.1.6-2. The filter barrier concept illustrated on a grain size distribution
plot.
Taking the same arrangement and adding a filter barrier, shown on the right side of
the box in the lower half of the figure, results in a total flow of 9.8 x 10-3 ft3/min,
1/50th of the original flow.
Note that when it is thought that a filter may impede the flow of a more pervious
foundation layer, a second stage can be used to increase drainage efficiency.
two procedures are used. The selection process for earthfill is shown in
figure 5.4.1.7-1, and the process for in situ (foundation) soils is shown in figure
5.4.1.7-2.
QT = k i· i i· A i
-5
Q 1 = ( 1×10 ) (10/100) (1)
H = 10 ft
-6 3
= 1×10 ft /min
0
Q 2 = ( 5×10 ) (10/100) (1)
-5 -1 3
(1) 1 ft a k = 1×10 ft/min = 5×10 ft /min
0 -6 3
(2) 1 ft b k = 5×10 ft/min Q 3 = Q 1 = 1×10 ft /min
-5
(3) 1 ft a k = 1×10 ft/min QT = Q1 + Q2 + Q3
-1 3
= 5×10 ft /min
100 ft
L i Q T = ( k eq ) i · i i · A i
k eq =
Li
H = 10 ft
ki
-5
Q 1 = ( 1.11×10 ) (10/100) (1)
-6 3
100 = 1.11×10 ft /min
(k eq)1 =
-2 90 10 -2
k = 1×10 ft/min -5 + -2 Q 2 = ( 9.82×10 )(10/100) (1)
1×10 1×10
-5 -3 3
(1) 1 ft a k = 1×10 ft/min -5 = 9.82×10 ft /min
= 1.11×10
0 -6 3
(2) 1 ft b k = 5×10 ft/min c 100 Q 3 = Q 1 = 1.11×10 ft /min
(k eq)2 =
-5 90 10
(3) 1 ft a k = 1×10 ft/min 10 ft 0 + -2 QT = Q1 + Q2 + Q3
5×10 1×10
-3 3
-2 = 9.82×10 ft /min
100 ft = 9.82×10
-5
(k eq)3 = ( k eq)1 = 1.11×10
(b) Q TOTAL = 9.82×10 -3 ft 3/min
Figure 5.4.1.6-3. The filter barrier concept illustrated as flow through a laboratory box.
If the earthfill falls within more than one category and it is not a drainage feature
(toe drain, relief well, etc.), it too can be based on the finer side of the range of
gradations. If an earthfill base is placed into more than one category, and the filter
needs to act as a drainage feature, use the finer side of the highest number category.
16
Filter design in this flowchart is controlled by particle retention criteria.
NO
NO
Base soil selection for in situ soils is more complicated due to the greater variability
of natural soil deposits than earthfill. This selection process does not differentiate
between existing and new dams since it is not germane. In evaluating filters for
complex foundation soil deposits, designers must carefully consider potential
seepage pathways and the type of internal erosion mechanism that needs mitigation.
Figure 5.4.1.7-2 presents a potential means of approaching this type of evaluation.
Using figure 5.4.1.7-2,17 the first steps are to check whether the in situ materials are
categorized correctly based on grain size distribution as described in section 5.4.1.2.
After this is complete, determine how many categories the range of base soils fall
within. If only one category is present, select the fine side of that category. If more
than one is present, determine if a continuous seepage path is present, as described
in the section 5.4.1.2. If the seepage path is not continuous, use the finer side of the
lowest number category. If a continuous seepage path is present, perform a trial
design using the fine side of the lowest numbered category. Check if the finer side
of the trial filter gradation is finer than 25 percent of the base soil gradations. If no
more than 25 percent of the base soils are coarser than the fine side of the trial filter,
the trial is acceptable. If more than 25 percent of the base soil gradations are
coarser than the fine side of the filter, the overall project design should be
evaluated. Design elements that reduce the volume of seepage that should be
considered for this situation are cutoff walls, upstream blankets, and grouting.
17
Filter design in this flowchart is controlled by particle retention criteria for some cases and
permeability for other cases. The different cases are described in the narrative.
If the design elements cannot be addressed, site conditions are exceptionally poor
(usually at existing dams), or costs are prohibitive, then the design proceeds by
emphasizing permeability requirements instead of particle retention requirements.
This is accomplished by comparing the trial filter design based on the finer side of
the two lowest numbered categories. If the D85B of the higher numbered category
is less than twice the D85B of the lower numbered category, the design based on the
higher numbered category is acceptable. Note that this design eliminates the factor
of safety against particle movement that is implicit in all designs that meet particle
retention criteria.
If the D85B of the higher numbered category soil is more than twice the D85B of the
lower numbered category, perform a new trial. In that trial, find the D15F of the
filter by multiplying the D85B of the finer side of the lowered numbered category by
9. That is:
D15F = 9 * D85B
This will result in a filter that will allow partial, but not continuous, erosion. This
design should always be confirmed by a laboratory filter test using the lowest
category soil and the proposed filter material.
The concept of regrading was developed by Sherard to correct for broadly graded
soils. These soils, as explained in section 5.3.8, can be internally unstable, and
regrading corrects for this phenomenon. Permitting the inclusion of gravel (+ No. 4
sizes) within a base soil gradation will lead to a large D85B size and, subsequently, a
large D15F size. Since gravel particles do not have any particle retention capability
in broadly graded or gap-graded soils, the resulting filter will be too coarse to
provide particle retention of the finer fraction of the base soil (i.e., the filter will not
Figure 5.4.2-1 shows a base soil that has not been regraded. The original
gradation shows that the fraction of the soil larger than 3/8 inch is internally
unstable. That is, it is flatter than the shown stability line (also see figure 5.3.8-1,
shown earlier in section 5.3.8) for the stability line). Sizing a filter for this material
This design results in the silt and fine sand of the base material eroding through the
18
The exceptions are described later in figure 5.4.2-3. These exceptions basically relate to
uniform gravels and they apply when designing coarser second stage zones, such as drain
envelopes.
10
90 D85B = 7.1
20
80
Stability Line
30
70
50
50
Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams
60
40
Base Soil - Not regraded
70
DS-13(5)-9
10 90
0 100
915 610 305 152 75 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 2 1.18 .6 .425 .3 .15 .075 .037 .019 .009 .005 .002 .001
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Incorrect
GRAVEL SAND
BOULDERS COBBLES FINES
FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
COARSE
line). The filter design based on the regraded soil is a fine gravel with 10 percent
that this regraded soil is internally stable (coarser fraction steeper than the stability
November 2011
DS-13(5)-9
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
SIZE IN INCHES IN INCHES TIME READINGS
7 HR- 25 HR-
1 MIN 15 MIN 45 MIN
36" 24" 12" 6" #100 4 MIN 19 MIN 60 MIN
3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #30 #40 #50 #200
0
100
10
90
D15B=2.1
20
80 Stability Line
November 2011
30
70
50
50
60
40
Base soil - regraded
30 70
D15F=8.
Fines = 16%, Cat 4
20 80
10 90
0 100
915 610 305 152 75 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 2 1.18 .6 .425 .3 .15 .075 .037 .019 .009 .005 .002 .001
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
5-77
Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams
Since regrading effectively removes material larger than the No. 4 sieve, it does not
apply to all soils, especially uniformly graded gravels which, by definition, are
larger than the No. 4 sieve. Figure 5.4.2-3 is used to determine which base soils
require regrading and the operation used to achieve the regrading. As shown in the
figure, when a soil does not contain any gravel (particle larger than the No. 4 sieve),
regrading is not required (step 2a). If the soil does contain gravel, it still may not
require regrading if it meets all of the three properties listed in the figure (step 2b).
If one or more of the properties are met, the soil should be regraded using the
procedure described in step 3.
Step 2a No Step 4
- Base soil contains gravel. - Place the base soil in a category based on
the % passing No. 200 sieve in accordance with
Yes
the base soil category's table.
Step 2b
- Base soil contains less than 15% fines.
- Base soil is not gap graded. All
yes
- Base soil is not broadly graded (i.e.,
Cu not > 6 and Cz not between 1 and 3).
Step 3
- Prepare adjusted gradation curves by:
a. Obtain a correction factor by dividing 100
by % passing No. 4 sieve size.
b. Multiply the % passing each sieve size of the
base soil < No. 4 by the correction factor.
c. Plot the regraded curve.
d. Use regraded curve to find % passing No. 200.
Figure 5.4.2-3. Logic diagram showing when regrading of the base soil is required.
40 A
4 xD85 B 0.7mm + 0.7mm
25
3 where:
The D5F limit is indicated by Point I and D100F by Point J on figure 5.4.4-1.
Note that the limit for maximum particle size given in table 5.4.6-1 (≤ 2 inches) is
intended for first stage, or 'sand' filters. Coarser second stage filters, such as drain
envelopes, may include particles larger than 2 inches. Additionally, the limitation
of fines content (Minimum D5F) is measured in-place. Measurement in a stockpile
will need to be less (2 percent) to account for breakdown during placement and
compaction.
The limits for this example Category 2 material are shown in figure 5.4.8-1. These
limits can be thought of as the range in which filter gradation candidates can be
entered. Filter gradation candidates within these limits will meet criteria for
permeability (minimum limit) and particle retention (maximum limit). Depending
on the planned use for a candidate, the gradation can be anywhere within this range
and still meet these criteria. The next sections present several examples. These
gradations are presented as examples and should not be used for the
applications described without going through the entire design procedure
described previously.
Figure 5.4.8-1. Limits (control points) for an example Category 2 base soil.
In general, the method of selecting the gradation band inside the limits can be
done in three steps:
1. Begin with the smaller grain sizes because this is where the particle
retention and permeability constraints are located (Points A, B, and I). If
particle retention is the more critical criterion, the gradation should be set
closer to Point B. If the permeability criteria are more important, the
gradation band should be closer to Point A.
3. Select the gradation range for the largest grain sizes. This portion of the
gradation band has the least amount of constraints on it (only Points J and
K) and offers the most flexibility in the gradation selection. In general, the
gradation bands should have the same or slightly flatter slopes than what is
seen in the range of 30 to 60 passing. The gradation should also curve to
the left similar to the relationship seen between Points J and K.
be used for toe drains when large amounts of seepage are not expected. Notice that
this filter gradation is intentionally uniformly graded to minimize segregation
potential.
The gradation was set by first selecting the finer side of the gradation band near
Point B. Next, since a more uniform gradation is desired, Bar LM is set to the
right, near Point B. The gradation is extended to pass through the Bar LM and
finished by decreasing the slope and curving the gradation for the coarsest portion
of the gradation. The resulting filter is a fine to medium sand.
(Points J and K), hence spanning the entire range within the limits. This candidate
has a coarser upper end than more uniformly graded candidates, permitting a
minimum 1-inch material for the next transition zone. The reduction in the number
of zones also results in a lower cost. While this gradation is more susceptible to
segregation than more uniformly graded material, that amount of segregation is
manageable using the construction techniques described in section 5.8.3.
When using the criteria in section 5.5 for designing a second-stage filter, which
usually is thought of as a drainage layer or zone, it is possible to increase the ratio
of D15F to D85B over that used for protecting a natural or unprocessed soil. The
ratio can be as high as 9, but 5 is generally found to meet the practical requirements
of the situation. This increase is sometimes possible because the first-stage filter:
(1) is a material processed to stringent gradation requirements and placed and
compacted under controlled conditions, (2) is inspected and tested to verify that
material properties conform to those that are specified, (3) usually has seepage
gradients that are much less than those of a foundation material or impervious zone
that needs filter protection, and (4) has D85 particles in the first stage filter material
that are larger than those in materials that are usually being protected and, therefore,
less likely to move. However, this increase should be made with caution.
19
The maximum dimension as used in this standard is the width for a slot and the diameter for a
hole.
“1. The NEF test is the best available test for evaluating critical filters
located downstream of impervious cores in embankment dams. This is
considered the most valuable single conclusion from the four-year long
research effort. The conditions in the test duplicate the most severe
conditions that can develop inside a dam from a concentrated erosive
leak through the core discharging into a filter. For tests with filters
finer than the filter boundary (D15 smaller than D15b), there is no visible
erosion of the walls of the initial preformed leakage hole
passing through the base specimen.
2. The NEF test is a simple test that can be made in any soil mechanics
laboratory. It gives reliably reproducible and easily interpreted results,
and it is well adapted for testing the entire range of impervious soils
used for dam cores.
4. Based on the results of NEF tests, soils used for the impervious
sections of embankment dams fall into the four general categories
shown in Table 1 depending only on fine content.” 20
20
See section 5.4.3 in this document for an explanation of these categories.
The following modifications were made to the NEF Test during the development of
the CEF test:
Water passing through the filter during the tests was collected, and the
eroded materials were dried and weighed to determine the loss of base
soil required to seal the filter.
Progressively coarser filters were used until the filter was not sealed.
Thicker base specimens were used to allow for greater erosion losses.
This study determined partial and continuous erosion thresholds based on grain size
distribution. They recommended evaluating an existing embankment filter
differently than when designing a new filter. The following quote is from their
article:
“An assessment of existing filters should consider how the filter may
perform in the event of a concentrated leak developing through the core.
The performance of filters in dams is classified into three categories as
follows:
The HET uses a 6-mm (0.24-inch) hole drilled in a specimen to model the erosion
occurring in an embankment. This contrasts with the 1 mm size of hole used in
the NEF Test. The HET tests used head differentials of 50 to 1,200 mm (2 inches
to 4 feet), whereas the NEF Test used 138 feet of head.
performance has indicated that other types of binders, such as soluble minerals,
may also contribute to adhesion in filter materials and that these binding agents
may not be detected by conventional test procedures. Therefore, in addition to the
conventional test procedures, additional tests are included in this section to more
closely evaluate material quality. It is recognized that some of these procedures
have not been in general use in the profession, and some do not have an accepted
standardized test procedure.
Filter and drain materials are derived from clean sands and gravels similar to
aggregates (sand and gravel) that are used for production of concrete. It is not
surprising then that material quality testing used for aggregates can also be used
for filter and drain material. A variety of tests are available to evaluate aggregate
quality. It is noted that independent of material testing, qualitative statements
have been used in specification paragraphs for both aggregates and filter/drain
material. A typical specification statement, as presented by the Federal Highway
Administration [48], is:
Similar statements have been used in Reclamation specifications, and they may
inform the contractor of intent, but it is difficult to enforce since the requirement
is subjective. The test procedures presented in this section are beneficial in
specifying the quality requirements for a given material. The use of subjective
statements in specification paragraphs should be avoided.
5.6.2.1 Sampling
The first step in testing candidate materials is to collect the sample. It is important
that a representative sample be collected in accordance with ASTM D75, “Standard
Practice for Sampling Aggregates” and USBR 7000 [1]. The sample must be large
enough to represent the material accurately; collection of undersized samples is a
common problem within the practice. ASTM D75 includes minimum sizes of
samples of aggregates as shown in table 5.6.2.1-1.
Another particle soundness test is ASTM C 131, “Test Method for Resistance to
Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the
Los Angeles Machine,” more commonly known as the “LA Abrasion Test.” For
acceptability, ASTM C-33 requires no more than 50-percent loss during abrasion
tests. When C-33 quality requirements are included in filter quality specification
paragraphs, this requirement must be met.
sieve21. Usually, the only portion of the test required is the plastic limit test. It is
only necessary to demonstrate that the sample cannot be rolled to a 1/8-inch
diameter thread at any water content.
21
Note that it may be difficult to conduct a test on material finer than the No. 40 sieve in this
situation. If so a sample of material finer than the No. 200 sieve can be used. If this modified
procedure is used it should be made clear in the specification paragraphs that the test procedure
deviates from ASTM D4318.
These factors are important for material quality in filters because they typically
indicate when binding agents may be present. Chemically unstable minerals, or
minerals that can go into dissolution, can be redistributed through the soil mass and
coat larger pieces of aggregate, binding them together. A similar process can occur
through alkali reaction.
“A simple test, suitable for use in a field laboratory, has been devised
to examine filter cohesion. It consists of forming a cylindrical or conical
sample of moist compacted filter, either in a compaction mould, or in a
small bucket such as is used by a child on a beach; standing the sample
in a shallow tray (if a bucket is used the operation is exactly as building a
child’s sand castle) and carefully flooding the tray with water. If the
sample then collapses to its true angle of repose as the water rises and
destroys the capillary suctions in the filter, then the filter is noncohesive.
Samples can be stored for varying periods to see if cohesive bonds form
with time. This test is, in effect, a compression test performed at zero
effective confining pressure and a very small shear stress, and it is a very
sensitive detector of a small degree of cohesion.”
“Also, the amount and type of fines present influence the capacity of a
filter to self-heal by collapsing any cracks within the filter (see
figure 8-3) [figure 5.6.2.7-1 in this document]. Therefore, the maximum
percent fines and type (silt, clay, etc.) to be allowed in the filter of an
earth dam must be shown to be sufficiently pervious by laboratory filter
tests (I) and self healing by collapse tests” [50].
The lack of precision and the inability to express results quantitatively are
shortcomings of this test. Specimen preparation has also been identified as an
issue. Because of these concerns, Reclamation has undertaken a study to see if the
test procedure could be improved [47a]. A more specific preparation method was
developed as part of the study. In the revised procedure, the specimen is oven dried
at 120 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) until its weight stabilizes. This step was added
because, by observation, it has been noted that filter material placement in the field
can be exposed to drying and warm summertime temperatures between placements,
sometimes for several days. It is thought that these conditions may contribute to
forms of physiochemical bonding between soil grains.
After curing, the samples are placed in water and the time to collapse is recorded.
The curing step appears to be the critical element in making the Sand Castle Test
sensitive to the conditions experienced by filter material in the field.
if ample material is near the jobsite and can be economically developed, equipment
width dimensions of filter/drain zones with less intensive placement and inspection
techniques may be more cost effective. The designer must ensure that there is
sufficient volume available to construct the work. Generally, it is prudent to have at
least two to four times the volume of material available in borrow than is necessary
to produce the final in-place volume of the filter/drain zones. For large jobs, a
sieve-by-sieve analysis should be made to determine which grain sizes are critical
for a specific pit. If thinner zones are used, the dimensions must be checked for
adequate hydraulic capacity. Logical sources must be investigated and, for
approved sources, appropriate information such as location, availability, ownership,
drill logs, test pit logs, appropriate lab tests, and geotechnical considerations
provided in the specifications. Refer also to Chapter 10, “Embankment
Construction,” [51] and Chapter 12, “Foundation and Earth Materials
Investigations,” [52] of this design standard.
area locations, they are instructive in explaining the geologic setting of the area and
indicate promising locations to examine more closely.
After completing a literature review for the area, a terrain interpretation step should
be undertaken. Terrain interpretation can be done two ways: by aerial photography
and by site reconnaissance. Terrain interpretation of photographs is described in
several text books [53, 54], where a description is given of changes in vegetation
and land use that often indicate what soils are present.
Figure 5.7.1-1. Exposed moraine cross section showing till overlying glacial
outwash. Such exposures provide an opportunity to obtain geologic
information by observation.
In general, sand and gravel deposits are associated with the following geologic
features:
Alluvial fans
Also critical for borrow area characterization are the groundwater conditions. Since
excavation techniques will be different above and below the water table, a clear
understanding of this level, and its fluctuations, is necessary. If dewatering is
required for borrow area use, the cost will need to be factored into the project
estimate. Consideration also needs to be given to seasonal fluctuations in water
levels. Providing a single static level to bidders can result in a claim if the ground
water level rises later and floods out the contractor. Therefore, water level readings
should be collected for the full range of expected water levels and presented in the
specification.
Common exploration methods for borrow area studies include augering, trenching,
bucket augering, and test pits. Which method is used is dependent on the maximum
particle size of the in situ material and material variability. Material that is smaller
than 3 inches should be sent to the laboratory for gradation analysis. Large material
is typically estimated visually in the field. It is imperative to present the full range
of material sizes because history shows that claims are made on this critical
characterization.
The preferred exploration method for sand and gravel borrow areas above water
table is trenching. Trenches are usually excavated using a utility tractor or trackhoe
(excavator), although larger trenches may be excavated by a dozer. Initially, trench
side slopes should always be vertical to give the best representation of the material.
For safety reasons, personnel should not be allowed in vertical-sided trenches
greater than 3 feet deep. Figure 5.7.1-2 illustrates a technique that can be used to
excavate an exploration trench that can be entered for mapping and sample
retrieval.
When sampling from trenches, all material should be collected, including oversized
material, so that the percentage of oversized material in the borrow can be
estimated. When cobbles and boulders are present, their volume will have to be
estimated visually in the field. Typically only material less than 3-inches is taken to
the laboratory for analysis. Figure 5.7.1-3 shows a trench excavation with the
boulders set to one side of the trench, indicating the size and distribution of the
boulders. Figure 5.7.1-4 shows the material distribution in the trench wall,
including interbedding. Note that this trench wall gives a much more detailed
description of the materials than what would be obtained from drill hole or auger
data. When sampling below the water table bucket auger may be required.
Trench
Boulders
Spoil pile
Figure 5.7.1-3. Exploratory trench excavated at a potential borrow area. During the
excavation, the boulder-size material was set aside to better characterize the
deposit.
fines content for the mass is less than 8 percent. That is, numerous 1-inch layers or
a high percentage of 1-inch layers may make a borrow area unacceptable.
Situations in which layers are several feet thick and at depth within the pit usually
will render the pit unusable. Since pits are typically excavated from a vertical face,
either from the top using a trackhoe (excavator) or from the bottom using a loader,
the low-quality layer will contaminate each load. In some instances, it may be
possible to excavate a desirable layer and send it to the processing plant, excavate
an undesirable layer to waste, and then return to excavating the underlying desirable
material. This operation will have the added cost of either stockpiling the upper
clean layer before feeding it to the processing plant or shutting down the plant while
the undesirable layer is removed.
Sand
Gravel
Boulder
In addition to fines occurring in discrete layers, problems can also arise from fines
adhering to larger particles such as gravel and cobbles. During borrow
investigation, larger particles should be specifically examined for fines adhesion.
As a general rule, fines that are easily wiped off of the larger particles by hand can
be successfully washed in the processing plant. Fines that can only be removed
with effort by rubbing cannot be cleaned by any type of washing operation. This
condition is usually only found above the ground water table, and similar material
below the water table has a better likelihood of being washed. In this situation, the
material above the water table may be unusable, even if the fines content is less
than 8 percent.22
Along with considering the amount of fines in a potential pit, the quality of the
aggregate should also be determined. See section 5.6.2 for a description of the
quality requirements for filter and drain materials and the test methods that can be
used to meet these quality requirements.
The final operation is sand washing. Since raking and screening operations
separate out the oversize and gravel sizes, only sand, silt, and clay remain at the far
end of the plant. Separating the sand and fines (silt and clay) requires wet washing.
While a number of methods are commercially available, some proprietary, they
consist of the same general concept, introducing the sand/silt/clay mixture into
standing water and agitating. This “washing machine” effect permits the larger
particles (sand) to go to the bottom of the mixer, while the smaller particles (silt and
clay) float to the surface or remain in suspension where they are drained off. The
sand is then directed to a conveyor where it is stockpiled, whereas the silty clay
slurry is delivered to settling ponds.
In areas where pit run material is not available but high quality rock is, the rock can
be excavated by blasting and crushed to sand and gravel sizes. It should not be
assumed that the crushed material is free of fines, and material obtained by this
22
Laboratory gradation testing should always be done using “wet” sieving, while recognizing
that the addition of sodium hexametaphosphate (wetting agent) will remove adhered fines—a
condition that typically is not duplicated at the processing plant.
method should be washed as described above. Crushing may also be used when
insufficient or no sand is present in a borrow area. It should be noted that crushing
operations will induce small fractures in the particles, which can result in
breakdown during hauling, placing, and compacting operations. Generally,
material that is not crushed will have better durability than material that is. Also,
material that is crushed will have sharper edges and be less likely to collapse than
material that is less angular.
Since the plant separation process results in multiple stockpiles of gravel and
multiple stockpiles of sand, these materials are blended back together to make the
desired end product. The process, also known as reassembly, is typically a separate
operation from the screening plant.
As described in previous sections, lead time to develop a borrow area and process
the material can be long. To help offset some of this time, a “materials” solicitation
can be produced prior to the solicitation for the major work. A “materials”
solicitation can be produced relatively quickly, and a contractor can produce and
stockpile material during preparation of the major work specification. This
solicitation process can reduce the total project schedule by months. It also helps to
minimize risk to the prime contractor because the uncertainty of producing the
material has been eliminated for that portion of the work.
In a similar manner, when modified C33 concrete sand is used as a filter (first
stage), standard materials can be used as the gravel drain or second stage. Several
materials in ASTM D448 have been checked against modified C33 concrete sand
and are included in table 5.7.2-2. When using modified C33 concrete sand, the
D448 materials do not have to be checked because the gradation range of the first
stage is fixed. Three materials have been included because not all materials will be
available in all areas.
Many State highway agencies also offer standard materials that may be acceptable
in filter or drain applications. Each would have to be checked on an individual
basis to ensure that they meet the gradation design criteria. Also, aggregate
suppliers may produce a material for another customer or application that meets
the design criteria.
Second stage gradations can be coarser than those shown in table 5.7.2-2.
Table 5.7.2-2 is based on:
D15E ≤ 4 * D85F
A less stringent particle retention requirement might be used for second stage
gradations since the base soil (concrete sand) is a manufactured product and
somewhat broadly graded (fine to coarse sand).
In general practice, 5 * D85F has been used in this application. For application
where a large amount of seepage is expected (highly pervious foundations), the
following relationship can be used, but with caution since it essentially eliminates
the factor of safety against particle movement.
D15E ≤ 9 * D85F
Using this relationship, commercially available products have been identified and
are presented in table 5.7.2-3.
2 inches 100 - -
½ inch - 26-60 -
No. 16 - - -
No. 50 - - -
Based on the D50 size of the materials presented in tables 5.7.2-2 and 5.7.2-3, the
maximum performation size can be calculated as described in section 5.5.2. Table
5.7.2-4 summarizes the resulting perforation sizes.
Blend
No. 467 No. 57 No. 67 579 No. 8 No. 89
5.7.3 Costs
Whether or not to develop a local or onsite borrow area is a function of cost and
schedule. Cost comparison studies can be done to estimate the unit cost of the
material from each site. All other things being equal, the cost to set up and operate
a local processing plant is compared against the cost to haul the material to the site
from a commercial borrow area. Studies during the Keechelus Dam modification
in 2002 indicated that this break-even point is about 20 miles, although there are a
number of factors that will have an impact on this distance. Once the cost estimates
are made, and if they are found to be significantly different, a decision can be made
on which source to use. If the costs are about the same, both developed and
commercial schemes may be included in the solicitation. In this way, the most
economical scheme will be used for the project.
Typically, the lower the allowable fines content of filter material, the greater the
cost. This is due to the amount of processing needed to remove the fines. Washing
is usually required to remove the fines, and this operation is one of the most
expensive procedures in the production of clean material. Also, more uniformly
graded filters are usually more costly than broadly graded filters. As described in
section 5.2.4, the amount of gradation uniformity depends on intended use of the
filter.
Filter width is defined as the horizontal measurement across the filter. The filter
thickness is defined as the measurement normal to the slope. Both definitions are
illustrated in figure 5.8.1-1. For vertical filters, the thickness equals the width.
When filters are placed against a slope, the width is always greater than the
thickness. The difference between width and thickness increases as the slope
becomes flatter, as shown in figure 5.8.1-2. Due to the “Christmas tree” effect
described later, narrow widths on flat slopes can lead to small thickness and even
windows, which can be problematic
width = 10 feet
When a filter is being designed to address seismic issues, the size of the filter is
generally controlled by the maximum deformation expected from the seismic event.
Deformations come from foundation fault displacement, foundation or embankment
liquefaction, slope failure, and nonliquefaction settlement of the embankment or
foundation. As an initial rule of thumb, the filter size should be at least twice as
large as the expected deformation (horizontal or vertical) in order to provide an
adequate factor of safety.
Narrow zones require special placement procedures and intense inspection during
construction. The crack resisting/self-healing capabilities of narrow zones are also
less than for wide zones, and they should not be used if adequate materials are
economically available. Often, reduced placement costs of wider zones will offset
increased material quantity when narrow zones are contemplated. Cost
considerations should only be the deciding factor when narrow zones meet the
design requirements (hydraulic capacity, crack stopping, filtering, accommodation
of postulated seismic movement, and self-healing) adequately. Narrower filters can
also become too thin when placed on flat slopes. Table 5.8.1-1 summarizes the
filter thickness for a range of slopes and highlights filter width/slope combinations
that result in a thickness of less than 2 feet [55].
Width – feet
Slope 16 9 6 5 3
1:1 11.7 6.6 4.4 3.6 2.2
2:1 7.5 4.2 2.8 2.3 1.4
3:1 5.1 2.9 1.9 1.6 1.0
4:1 3.8 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.7
When narrow inclined zones are used, the designer should realize that placement
procedures do not result in straight interfaces between filter drains and surrounding
zones, but many have more of a “Christmas tree” appearance as shown in
figure 5.8.1-3. While this photograph illustrates an overbuild condition, a more
common underbuild condition is also possible. When underbuilt, the filter necks
down and, in the most extreme cases, is nonexistent, leaving an unprotected
window in the filter. The specified minimum width should account for the
“Christmas tree” configuration to ensure adequate drainage capacity.
Figure 5.8.1-3. “Christmas tree” effect in a sloping chimney filter. (Photo courtesy
of URS Corp.)
Inclined chimneys also experience a reduction in width when lifts are not placed at
a uniform elevation along the direction parallel to the axis of the dam. As the
chimney is brought up, it is possible, and usually likely, that there will be low spots,
or sags, along the top of the chimney. When a low area exists, a common mistake
is to continue the lower portion parallel to the axis of the dam when that portion
should actually shift downstream, and failing to make this correction will result in
the chimney “thinning” out in the area of the sag. For a 2-foot sag on a 3H:1V
(horizontal:vertical) slope, this can result in a 6-foot error. This error can also result
in the filter pinching out or leaving a window in the filter.
1. Maintain the adjacent impervious core one lift ahead of the sand filter/drain.
2. Maintain the sand filter/drain one lift ahead of the impervious core.
3. Trenching.
5.8.2.3 Trenching
The trenching method is shown in figures 5.8.2.3-1, 5.8.2.3-2, and 5.8.2.3-3 and is
utilized when the filter/drain is constructed within a basically homogeneous
impervious core. In this method, the impervious core is built completely over the
filter/drain for a thickness of 3 to 5 feet. Using a trenching machine or other
suitable excavation equipment, the core is then excavated down to the top of the
previously completed filter/drain, and the trench is backfilled with compacted
filter/drain material. The trenching method facilitates compaction since the
material is confined on three sides, provides for closer control of quantities, and is
conducive to obtaining excellent contacts between the filter/drain and adjoining
impervious core. Disadvantages include the fact that trenching is time consuming,
expensive, inspection intensive (to ensure the tie-in between the existing filter/drain
material and the newly placed material is not contaminated), and arching may occur
across the trench reducing the ability of the filter to self heal. In addition, this
method can be used only for construction of narrow, vertical filter/drains in
embankments composed of central and downstream homogeneous material that will
stand vertically without caving when trenched.
purpose exclusively and not be used for other work. Truck boxes (beds) should be
inspected regularly as the work proceeds because pockets of fine materials have a
tendency to become concentrated in corners and may be released during dumping.
All filter/drain areas traversed by equipment must be inspected and any deleterious
material deposited from the tire treads removed. This requires constant attention
and often may require hand work.
5.8.2.5 Spreading
Chimney filters and drains can be spread out using a number of methods which
are typically dependent on the width of the filter. For chimneys 8 feet and wider,
direct delivery by truck and blading by dozer or grader are used. For narrower
chimneys, spreader boxes or truck mounted conveyors are used. Details of these
methods are presented in the following sections.
5.8.2.5.1 Blading
Since spreading dumped material by blading inherently causes segregation and
possibly contamination, blading should be kept to a minimum. Blading is usually
accomplished by graders or dozers as shown in figure 5.8.2.5.1-1, with tracking off
the filter kept to a minimum to lessen the chances of contamination. To minimize
segregation, spreading equipment should be operated at minimum speeds and
tracking on the filter minimized. Some hand work may be required in addition to
blading.
releasing material at the specified loose lift thickness and width. Use of this device
can be somewhat cumbersome, but it is usually worth the extra effort because no
blading or trafficking by equipment (other than by the prime mover for the box) is
required to place the filter/drain material in the exact loose lift thickness and zone
width. Several variations of spreader boxes have been used, each being constructed
to fit specific project requirements. At another project, the box was configured with
a divider wall to place both the first and second stages simultaneously as shown in
figure 5.8.2.5.2-2. Each zone was 4 feet wide and was placed in a 12-inch loose
thickness. The box was filled with material from either side, as shown in
figure 5.8.2.5.2-3, and towed by a Caterpillar D-6 dozer at a slow speed as shown in
figure 5.8.2.5.2-4. In another case, the spreader box shown in figure 5.8.2.5.2-5
placed two 5-foot-wide zones simultaneously but was fitted on the front of a dozer
with hydraulic lift capabilities. Both materials flowed out of the box at the proper
zone width and loose lift thickness as the dozer operated in reverse as shown in
figure 5.8.2.5.2-6. Mobility of this type spreader box is significantly increased over
that of a towed unit.
Figure 5.8.2.6-1. Truck conveyor delivering filter sand for the addition of a 4-foot-
wide chimney filter to an existing embankment. Note that the material is uniformly
placed from the conveyor, and no leveling is required. Dynamic compaction is
provided by the roller shown in the foreground.
5.8.3 Segregation
Completely eliminating segregation during construction is practically impossible
because the material must be handled, and handling itself will cause some amount
of segregation. However, adhering to proper construction practices that have been
established by experience for storing, hauling, dumping, spreading, and compacting
filter/drain materials can significantly reduce the amount of segregation [57].
Segregation can be adequately controlled in several ways. First, the designer can
specify a uniformly graded filter or drain and limit the maximum sizes as discussed
earlier in this design standard. Secondly, construction techniques to control
segregation should be specified and enforced. Use of rock ladders, spreader boxes,
and “elephant trunks” for loading hauling units, and hand working the placed
materials, help prevent segregation. If material is dumped, limiting the height of
drop to less than 2 feet helps. Placing filter/drain material with belly dumps
sometimes adequately limits segregation during placement. Limiting the width of
the belly dump opening by chaining or other means can increase its ability to limit
segregation. Using baffles in spreader boxes and other placing equipment can help
reduce segregation. The personnel inspecting the filter/drain production,
placement, and compaction should be apprised of the importance of limiting
segregation.
5.8.5 Compaction
Filter zones are usually compacted for one or more of the following reasons:
These characteristics normally require a relatively high density. On the other hand,
there are valid reasons why sand filters/drains and transition zones should not be
compacted to an excessively high density.23 Very densely compacted sands can
result in overly brittle zones that have less than desirable self-healing properties
(sustain a crack). Requiring a high shear strength and low compressibility always
has the accompanying properties of a more brittle zone with a tendency to crack
upon deformation and to arch in narrower zones. In order to achieve high densities,
several passes of a heavy vibratory roller are sometimes specified. This has a
tendency to increase the potential of particle breakage that can produce a thin layer
of excessive fines at the lift surface, which can have the effect of reducing vertical
permeability, while at the same time reducing self-healing properties of the
material.
23
“Compaction of filters should be minimal. Excessive compaction, particularly of crushed rock,
can lead to the creation of sufficient fines in the filter to make them susceptible to cracking.” [59]
Thoroughly wetting sand prior to compaction has often been recommended but is
not required. Dynamic loading by the compactor is the critical component in
compacting granular materials.
Static weight
Drum diameter and width
Range of operational frequencies of vibration
Imparted dynamic force
Roller operation (covered in following section)
All specified static and dynamic properties of the particular roller must be
checked and verified to be in accordance with the specification requirements prior
to use. A test fill, prior to beginning construction of a filter or drain, is usually
specified to ensure that the compactor will satisfactorily obtain the required
results, even when the compactor characteristics have been specified.
24
Assuming that dynamic force is applied to each drum.
conduit.
The minimum density should generally not generally be less than 70-percent
relative density, particularly if liquefaction is a concern. Whenever in-place grain-
size limits for filters/drains are specified, the grain-size tests should be made on
samples taken from in-place fill after compaction. Ring permeability tests made at
various levels in test fills are one way to obtain realistic permeabilities representing
vertical permeabilities of compacted filters and drains. Laboratory procedures that
closely duplicate field placement and compaction methods can also provide
reasonable values for expected levels of permeability in filters and drains. If
proposed materials do not have sufficient permeability after compaction, changes in
grain sizes should be made to provide the required permeability. Also, designers
should consider changes in layer thickness or geometries of drains that increase
discharge capacity to the required levels, while providing the needed filter
protection.
Over compaction of filter material can also results in particle breakdown near the
top of the lift which can result in a heterogeneous material. This anisotropy may
results in a vertical permeability less than the horizontal permeability which could
result in poor performance of chimney filters.
5.8.6 Contamination
To avoid contamination of filter/drain zones with excess fines from flanking fill
zones during construction, several techniques should be used. The filter/drain zone
should be maintained higher than the surrounding fill surface, and the surrounding
fill should be placed to maintain drainage of surface water (and sediments) away
from the filter/drain zones. This prevents the flow of muddy water into the filter or
drain. Traffic should be well controlled, with crossings limited to prepared haul
routes that will be removed entirely prior to placing of additional filter/drain
materials. Crossings should be staggered to remove any possibility of vertical
transmissibility of the filter/drain zone being reduced. Durable materials should be
specified, and compactive effort should be held to the minimum necessary to obtain
desired in-place density, to minimize particle breakdown during placement and
compaction. Equipment for placement and compaction of filter/drain zones should
be maintained clean and restricted to operation only on the filter/drain zones;
additional equipment should be cleaned before moving onto the filter to avoid
Contamination can also occur during loading, hauling, placing, and compaction
because these processes tend to cause breakdown of the materials, sometimes to the
extent of causing the gradation to be out of specification requirements.
Contamination can occur in the stockpile. Dust abatement control procedures and
use of equipment around the stockpile that is maintained in a clean condition reduce
this problem. It may be necessary to reprocess or not use the bottom foot or so of
the stockpile because that is where the greatest contamination of the stockpile
generally occurs. Generally, the concern is for an increase in the fines content
because these fine materials can reduce the filter permeability. However,
breakdown of any particle size can be detrimental since this may alter the ability to
filter or be filtered.
The percent fines after compaction should not exceed 5 percent to ensure that
permeability is not decreased to an unacceptable degree. To achieve this, the
material has to contain less than 2 percent fines in the stockpile, depending on the
durability of the particles. Durability requirements should be specified. Durability
requirements equal to those used for concrete aggregate are preferred, and they
usually ensure that the material can withstand necessary processes to be placed and
compacted without excessive breakdown, while also helping ensure long-term
durability during project operation. Although it is desirable to make the
specifications requirement for filter material gradation in place after compaction,
in some instances, such as when material is preprocessed in a prior contract, after-
compaction requirements are not practical. In these cases, specifying clean material
(less than 2 percent fines in the stockpile) and adequate durability becomes even
more important.
Shell
Core
Chimney Chimney
Drain Filter
Assuming crossings are kept to a minimum and are at specified, confined, and
well-marked locations, one method to protect the filter/drain is to place a
“sacrificial pad” of drain material at each crossing. This pad should be wide
enough to accommodate equipment being used and should have a minimum
thickness of 18 inches. When the crossing is no longer needed, the pad and drain
material below the crossing are excavated, and the drain is brought back to desired
grade with clean, well-compacted filter/drain material. Excavation of a crossing is
shown in figure 5.8.6.1.2-2. Another method requires the placement of a heavy
geomembrane or steel plates over the drain at the crossing to help protect the
material from effects of vehicle traffic. Placement of a geomembrane is shown in
figure 5.8.6.1.2-3. Even with the use of a geomembrane or steel plates, some
undercutting and backfilling of the filter/drain material will still be required, but
usually not to the extent required without the covering. Regardless of the method
of protection used, careful visual inspection and gradation test(s) should be
performed on in-place material prior to allowing placement of additional filter/drain
material. Such inspection and testing would verify and ensure the site’s condition,
as well as provide a documented record of acceptable crossing cleanup practice.
5.8.7.1 Inspection
According to Dr. Ralph Peck, “There are few things of more importance in
ensuring quality on a construction job than to have a set of eyes attached to a
calibrated brain observing the construction operations” [64]. Regardless of the
number of tests performed, they represent only a minute fraction of material that
has been placed. Therefore, continuous visual inspection of field operations and
conditions is the backbone of the quality control (QC) program and is vitally
important to ensuring quality. Typical items an inspector should observe with
respect to filter/drain/transition zone construction include the hauling, dumping,
spreading, and compaction operations; condition of the in-place material; and
protection of the completed work. In addition to observation, the inspector must
call for testing to be performed at the locations the inspector determines to be
questionable. All of these operations should be observed and monitored in
compliance with the specification and proper construction practice.
To be most effective, inspectors must establish a reputation for being strict but fair.
Inspection personnel must be experienced, knowledgeable of the plans and
specifications, and good communicators. Early in the job, inspectors must make
every effort to become “calibrated” to material characteristics and behavior in the
construction process. This is necessary to lend credibility to the observations and to
operate efficiently. By observing construction processes and material conditions, a
properly calibrated inspector should have a very good idea whether placed material
meets the specifications, even before testing is performed. Inspectors must
communicate well, especially with contractor personnel. Experience has repeatedly
shown that inspectors should establish good relations with contract personnel and
5.8.7.2 Testing
Field and laboratory testing, together, provide verification of specification
compliance for filter/drain and transition zone materials placed in an embankment.
In addition, test results provide as-built documentation for the completed structure.
Test results aid in the calibration process for QC personnel and help inform the
contractor about what is expected to be achieved in the field. Like inspection, field
and laboratory testing form an integral part of the QC program and are essential to
obtaining product quality. Because of time constraints, most projects will require
an onsite testing laboratory staffed with trained and experienced technicians. All
inspection and laboratory technicians should also be experienced with the latest
testing procedures and requirements.
Figure 5.8.7.2.1-1. ‘Sand Cone Test’ being performed in a sand blanket filter.
The following sections discuss these tests for use in construction control in more
detail.
25
Some tests are no longer used due to their incorrect application in granular soils.
Difficulty in calibrating the vibrating table used for the maximum index
density test
Tavenas et al. [66] and Holtz [67] describe problems with the use of relative density
in construction control. They report unacceptably large deviations in test results on
a standard sample between laboratories. Their studies show that results from the
minimum and maximum index density tests are subject to large variations, even
though standardized procedures were prescribed for the testing. Tests showed a
wide confidence interval, for example the 95-percent confidence interval for clean
sand covered a range of 6.8 lb/ft3. In addition to the above problems with the test
itself, performance of the test is time consuming and is therefore not conducive for
compliance testing during construction.
5.8.7.2.8 Gradation
Laboratory testing of sand samples for gradation compliance is accomplished by
using the test method presented in ASTM D422, “Standard Method for Particle
Size Analysis of Soils.” In cases where a quick check is useful (as perhaps percent
passing the No. 200 sieve size), a partial gradation may be performed. Otherwise,
the sieves used in the test should be the same size and number as presented in the
specification.
A minimum depth of 4 feet should be provided over the top of the pipe for
H-20 highway truck loading (front axle load of 8,000 pounds and rear axle load of
52,000 pounds) in accordance with AASHTO (more depth may be required if
recommended by the manufacturer). Note that crossing over a pipe at a low point
in the haul road will lead to higher-than-normal loads due to braking. In a similar
fashion, a poorly maintained and uneven haul road will lead to bouncing, which
also results in higher loads. If the haul road is poorly maintained or does not have a
uniform grade, traffic speed should be restricted to no more than 5 miles per hour at
the crossing. Recommendations for the type of pipe to use for these loading
conditions are presented in section 5.2.3.2. To confirm that installed pipes have not
been damaged, it is recommended that a video inspection be made soon after 4 feet
of permanent fill has been placed over the pipe.
5.9 Glossary
Absorption – The increase in the weight of aggregate due to water in the pores of
the material, but not including water adhering to the outside surface of the
particles, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The aggregate is
considered “dry” when it has been maintained at a temperature of 110 plus or
minus 5 degrees Celsius for sufficient time to remove all uncombined water.
Abutment – That part of the valley wall against which the dam is constructed.
Left and right abutments are defined on the basis of looking in the downstream
direction.
Apparent specific gravity – The ratio of the weight in air of a unit volume of the
impermeable portion of aggregate at a stated temperature to the weight in air of an
equal volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature.
Arching – The soil property in which stresses distribute onto stiffer elements,
such as rock formation or a concrete structure, in such a way that the vertical
stresses over softer areas are less than the overburden pressure.
Base soil – The soil material that is being protected by a filter. Base soils are
upgradient of the filter.
Binding agents – Material, either mineral or chemical, that coats filter material,
resulting in the filter particles being cemented or bound together.
Category 1 soil – Base soil that has more than 85 percent fines after regrading.
Category 2 soil – Base soil that has between 40 and 85 percent fines after
regrading.
Category 3 soil – Base soil that has between 15 and 40 percent fines after
regrading.
Category 4 soil – Base soil that has less than 15 percent fines after regrading.
Clean – A soil gradation that contains less than 5 percent fines by weight.
Compactor – Machinery or device used to increase the density of soil. Also see
“Roller.”
Coverage – The amount of surface area that is compacted in one trip. For steel
drum rollers, the coverage is 100 percent. For rubber-tire rollers, the coverage is
50 percent due to the space between the tires. Therefore, two passes/trips are
required to obtain 100-percent coverage.
Critical gradient – The gradient at which seepage will cause soil particles to
begin to move. In cases where seepage exits the ground surface vertically, the
critical gradient is calculated as unity when the specific gravity is 2.74. Soils that
have a different specific gravity will have a different critical gradient.
Dam – An artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water, wastewater, or
any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or control of water.
Dam height – The vertical difference between the lowest point in the original
streambed at the dam axis (or the crest centerline) and the crest of the dam.
Discharge face – The downstream face of the base soil through which seepage
flow passes.
Discharge point – The end of a drain system where flow is discharged into some
other watercourse or drainageway.
Dispersive soil – Clay soil that has higher than typical erosion potential due to its
uncommon characteristic of dispersing into seepage flow similar to going into
solution.
Drainage blanket – An embankment zone that provides drainage from the base
of the chimney to the downstream toe area of a dam.
Erosion – Removal of soil grains by either surface water flow or seepage through
the ground.
Filter – A zone of material designed and installed to provide drainage, yet prevent
the movement of soil particles due to flowing water. A material or constructed
zone of earthfill that is designed to permit the passage of flowing water through it
but prevents the passage of significant amounts of suspended solids through it by
the flowing water.
Filter cake – A thin layer of soil particles that accumulate at the face of a filter
when water flowing through a crack in the upstream zone carries eroding particles
to the filter face. The filter cake forms when eroded particles embed themselves
into the surface near voids of the filter. The filter cake is effective in reducing
further waterflow and erosion through the crack.
Fines – The soil grain sizes that are smaller than the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) as
used in the USCS.
First filling – Usually refers to the initial filling of a reservoir or conduit. After
major repairs, the refilling of the reservoir may also be referred to a first filling.
First stage – The initial stage of a filter/drain system usually consisting of filter
sand. The first stage protects foundation soils or impervious core.
Flexible pipe – A pipe that derives its load carrying capacity by deflecting at least
2 percent into the surrounding medium upon application of load.
Gap-graded – A soil property in which a particular soil grain size is missing from
the central portion of the gradation curve, such as when no fine sand grain sizes
are present in a sand and gravel soil, there is a “gap” in the fine sand size. Also
known as skip-graded.
Gradation band – The range of particle sizes for which a filter gradation is
specified. The gradation band must fit within the limits determined by the filter
design procedure. Also see “Limits.”
Gradient – The change in head loss of a given distance. Also the property used
to evaluate the potential for seepage water to move (erode) a soil particle.
Gravel – Materials that will pass a 3-inch (76.2-millimeter [mm]) and be retained
on a No. 4 (4.75-micrometer [µm]) U.S. standard sieve.
Groin – The line of contact between the face of the dam (upstream or
downstream) and the abutment.
Grout – A fluidized material that is injected into soil, rock, concrete, or other
construction material to seal openings and to lower the permeability and/or
provide additional structural strength. There are four major types of grouting
materials: chemical, cement, clay, and bitumen.
Grout mix – The proportions or amounts of the various materials used in the
grout, expressed by weight or volume (the words “by volume” or “by weight”
should be used to specify the mix).
Grout pipe – The pipe used to transport grout to a certain location. The grout
may be transported through this pipe by either gravity flow or pressure injection.
Hazard – A situation that creates the potential for adverse consequences such as
loss of life or property damage.
Head – The vertical difference, typically expressed in feet, between two water
surface elevations.
Height (above ground) – The maximum height from natural ground surface to
the top of an embankment dam.
Hydraulic conductivity – The ease at which water can flow though a soil. The
coefficient of hydraulic conductivity is a property of a soil in which the waterflow
through the soil is a function of the gradient and cross sectional area of the flow
path.
Hydraulic gradient – The slope of the hydraulic grade line. The hydraulic
gradient is the slope of the water surface in an open channel.
Hydraulic height – The vertical difference between the lowest point in the
original streambed at the dam axis (or the centerline crest of the dam) and the
maximum controllable water surface (which often is the crest of an uncontrolled
overflow spillway).
Hydraulic structure – Any structure that retains or carries water (dams, levees,
canals, spillways, retaining walls, etc.).
Hydrostatic head – The fluid pressure of water produced by the height of the
water above a given point.
Ice lens – A mass of ice and soil formed during the construction of an
embankment dam when a moist soil is exposed to freezing temperatures. In
certain types of soils (silts and silty clay soils), the size of the ice mass will
increase as it draws unfrozen capillary water from the adjacent soil. A loose soil
lense containing voids may remain after the ice lens melts.
Inclined filter – A sloping embankment filter zone located near the control
portion of the cross section. Also see “Chimney.”
Infiltration – The flow of water through a soil surface or the flow of water into a
conduit through a perforation, joint, or defect.
Intergranular flow path – Flow of water through the voids or pore spaces of a
soil.
Internal erosion – A general term used to describe all of the various erosional
processes in which water moves internally through or adjacent to the soil zones of
embankment dams and foundation. The term “internal erosion” is used in this
document in place of a variety of terms that have been used to describe various
erosional processes such as scour, suffosion, concentrated leak piping, and others.
A term used to describe the process of erosion of dam or foundation soils by
flowing water, which includes erosion by such mechanisms as scour, internal
instability of soils, heave, or “piping.”
Internal instability – A property of soil in which particles can move within the
mass itself.
Inundation map – A map showing areas that would be affected by flooding from
releases from a dam’s reservoir. The flooding may be from either controlled or
uncontrolled releases or as a result of a dam failure. A series of maps for a dam
could show the incremental areas flooded by larger flood releases.
Loess – Silt which is transported by the wind over many miles, sometimes
hundreds of miles, and deposited in deposits in thickness of several inches to
several hundred feet. Many loess deposits are nonplastic and have little erosion
resistance.
Maximum water surface – The reservoir water surface that results from the
inflow design flood.
Multilayer filter – A filter/drain system consisting of more than one stage (i.e., a
two-stage filter).
Normal water surface – For a reservoir with a fixed overflow sill, this is the
lowest crest level of that sill. For a reservoir with an outflow controlled wholly or
partly by moveable gates, siphons, or other means, it is the maximum level to
which water may rise under normal operating conditions, exclusive of any
provision for flood surcharge.
Nuclear gauge – An instrument used to measure the density and water content of
both natural and compacted soil, rock, and concrete masses. The gauge obtains
density and water contents from measurements of gamma rays and neutrons that
are emitted from the meter. Gamma rays are emitted from a probe inserted into
the mass being measured. Measurement of the gamma rays transmitted through
the mass, when calibrated properly, reflects the density of the mass. Neutrons are
emitted from the base of the gauge. Measuring the return of reflected neutrons
when the gauge is calibrated properly can be related to the water content of the
mass.
Passes – One trip for a single-drum roller. When a roller has two drums, one trip
is equal to two passes.
Perforated pipe – A pipe intended to collect seepage through holes or slots on its
exterior.
Permeability – The ease at which water or other fluid, including gasses, can flow
through a material.
Phreatic line – Water surface boundary. Below this line, soils are assumed to be
saturated. Above this line, soils contain both gas and water within the pore
spaces.
Phreatic surface – The planar surface between the zone of saturation and the
zone of aeration. Also known as free-water surface, free-water elevation, ground
water surface, and ground water table. The top of the zone of saturation in an
embankment. Seepage through the embankment causes the saturation, and the
location of the phreatic surface typically varies in response to changing reservoir
and tailwater conditions.
Pipe – A hollow cylinder of concrete, plastic, or metal used for the conveyance of
water.
Ductile iron – A type of iron-based metallic alloy pipe that is wrought into
shape.
Steel – A type of iron-based metallic alloy pipe having less carbon content
than cast iron but more than ductile iron.
Pore pressure – The interstitial pressure of a fluid (air or water) within a mass of
soil, rock, or concrete.
Preferential flow path – A crack in a soil mass or a separation between soil and a
structure or rock contact.
Quality assurance – A planned system of activities that provides the owner and
permitting agency assurance that the facility was constructed as specified in the
design. Construction quality assurance includes inspections, verifications, audits,
and evaluations of materials and workmanship necessary to determine and
document the quality of the constructed facility. Quality assurance refers to
measures taken by the construction quality assurance organization to assess if the
installer or contractor is in compliance with the plans and specifications for a
project. An example of a quality assurance activity is verifications of quality
control tests performed by the contractor using independent equipment and
methods.
Refilling – The procedure of filling a reservoir after it has previously held water,
typically after a modification to an existing dam.
the maximum index void ratio and any given void ratio of a cohesionless,
free-draining soil to the difference between its maximum and minimum index
void ratios.
Relief well – A vertical well near the downstream toe of the dam used to relieve
pressure in a deeper foundation layer that is under high pressure.
Riprap bedding – The bedding layer under riprap usually consisting of gravel
and cobble size material. The purpose of the bedding is to provide for riprap
embedment and a transition between the riprap and upstream shell or core of the
dam as the case may be.
Roller – Machinery used to increase the density of soil that typically rolls across
the fill on a drum. Also see “Compactor.”
Sand – Particles of rock that will pass the No. 4 (4.75-µm) sieve and be retained
on the No. 200 (0.075-mm) U.S. standard sieve.
Sand boil – Sand or silt grains deposited by seepage discharging at the ground
surface without a filter to block the soil movement. The sand boil may have the
shape of a volcano cone with flat to steeper slopes, depending on the size and
gradation of particles being piped. Sand boils are evidence of piping occurring in
the foundation of embankments or levees from excessive hydraulic gradient at the
point of discharge. Seepage emerging downstream of a dam, characterized by a
boiling action at the surface and typically surrounded by a ring of material
(caused by deposition of foundation and/or embankment material carried by the
seepage flow).
Seepage – The infiltration or percolation of water through rock or soil or from the
surface.
Shear stress – Stress acting parallel to the surface of the plane being considered.
Silt – Material passing the No. 200 (75-µm) U.S. standard sieve that is nonplastic
or very slightly plastic and that exhibits little or no strength when air dried.
moisture.
Strip outlet drains – Drainage material placed in strips perpendicular to the dam
axis under the downstream shell used to connect the base of the chimney with the
downstream toe.
Structural height – The vertical distance from the lowest point of the excavated
foundation (excluding narrow fault zones) to the top of the dam.
Suffosion – Seepage flow through a material that causes part of the finer grained
portions of the soil matrix to be carried through the coarser grained portion of the
matrix. This type of internal erosion is specifically relegated only to gap-graded
soils (internally unstable soils) or to soils with an overall smooth gradation curve,
but with an overabundance of the finer portions of the curve represented by a “flat
tail” to the gradation curve. While a crack is not needed to initiate this type of
internal erosion, a concentration of flow in a portion of the soil is needed.
Tailwater – The elevation of the free water surface (if any) on the downstream
side of an embankment dam.
Toe drain – A drain typically located near the downstream toe of a dam, although
drains under the downstream shell and downstream of the toe of the dam are also
considered toe drains. The purpose of the drain is to gather flow from the
chimney and blanket, if provided, and to collect seepage from the foundation.
Toe drains can be either single-stage or two-stage filter/drain systems and may or
may not include a collection pipe. The collection pipe can be open-jointed tile or
perforated pipe located at or near the toe of the dam that functions to collect
seepage and convey the seepage to a downstream outfall.
Toe of the embankment dam – The junction of the downstream slope or face of
a dam with the ground surface; also referred to as the downstream toe. The
junction of the upstream slope with ground surface is the upstream toe.
Trench – A narrow excavation (in relation to its length) made below the surface
of the ground.
Turbidity meter – A device that measures the loss of a light beam as it passes
through a solution with particles large enough to scatter the light.
Uplift – The pressure in the upward direction against the bottom of a structure
such as an embankment dam or conduit or a soil stratum.
Upstream blanket – An impervious soil layer placed upstream of the dam and
connected to the core. The purpose of an upstream blanket is to increase the
seepage path length under the dam on pervious foundations.
Water content – The ratio of the mass of water contained in the pore spaces of
soil or rock material, to the solid mass of particles in that material, expressed as a
percentage.
Weir – A barrier in a waterway over which water flows, serving to regulate the
water level or measure flow. A device designed to allow the accurate
measurement of the flow rate of drain flows, seepage flows, etc., by forcing the
water to flow through a standardized opening, and measuring the elevation
differential between the water surface in the stilling pool in front of the weir and
the weir crest elevation, using a staff gauge set back an appropriate distance from
the weir. When a weir is installed in a standard manner, charts are available for
correlating staff gauge readings with flow rates. Types of weirs include
Cipolletti, rectangular, and V-notch.
Well-graded – A soil gradation consisting of several soil sizes that form a smooth
gradation curve when plotted on a logarithmic scale.
5.10 References
[1] Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Third Edition, Part 1, 1998; Part 2,
1990.
[3] Sherard, J.L., L.P. Dunnigan, and J.R. Talbot, “Basic Properties of Sand and
Gravel Filters,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 110, No. 6, pp. 684-700, June 1984.
[5] Cedergren, H.R., “Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets,” Third Edition, John
Wiley, CFGB, 1997. Internal Erosion: Typology, Detection, Repair.
Barrages and Reservoirs No. 6, Comité Francais des Grands Barrages,
Le Bourget-du-lac Cedex, 1989.
[6] Justin, J.D., J. Hinds, and W.P. Creager, Engineering for Dams, Vol. III,
“Earth, Rock-Fill, Steel and Timber Dams,” John Wiley and Sons, 1945.
[8] C
edergren, H.R., Embankment-Dam Engineering—Casagrande Volume,
Chapter 2, “Seepage Control in Earth Dams,” John Wiley and Sons, NY,
1973 pp. 37-44.
[9] Pabst, Mark, and Z.Z. Lee, “Seepage Analysis of Keechelus Dam
Foundation,” Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual
Conference, Indian Wells, CA, September 7-11, 2008.
[10] Pabst, Mark, and J. France, “Getting Water in Pipes – Not as Easy as it
Seems,” Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference,
Austin, TX, 2007.
[13] Gerhart, Phil C., Steven R. Day, and Eric R. Dixon, “A Bio-Polymer Drain
Solution for Piute Dam,” Association of State Dam Safety Officials
Annual Conference, 2005.
[14] Cedergren, H.R., Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, Second Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, NY, 1977, pp. 190-205 and 311-313.
[21] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Filter Design, Tentative Design Procedure,
Providence District, RI, November 1942.
[23] Sherard, J.L., L.P. Dunnigan, and J.R. Talbot, “Basic Properties of Sand and
Gravel Filters,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, June 1984.
[24] Sherard, J.L., L.P. Dunnigan, and J.R. Talbot, Filters for Silts and Clays,”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, June 1984.
[25] Sherard, J.L., and L.P. Dunnigan, “Filters and Leakage Control in
Embankment Dams,” Transactions of the ASCE Geotechnical
Conference, Denver, Colorado, 1986.
[26] Fell, Robin, and M. Foster, “The Internal Erosion and Piping Process,
“Proceedings, Workshop on Issues, Solutions and Research Needs
Related to Seepage Through Embankment Dams,” Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Denver, CO, October 17-19, 2000.
[27] Cedergren, H.R., Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, Second Edition, John
L. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1977.
[29] Vaughan, P.R., and H.F. Soares, “Design of Filters for Clay Cores of
Dams,” Journal of the Geotechnical Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, FT-1, January 1982.
[30] Vaughan, P.R., D.J. Kluth, J.W. Leonard, and H.H.H. Pradoura, “Cracking
and Erosion of the Rolled Clay Core of Balderhead Dam and the
Remedial Works Adopted for its Repair,” Trans. 10th Cong. Large
Dams, Vol. 1, 1970.
[31] Arulanandan K., and E.B. Perry, “Erosion in Relation to Filter Design
Criteria in Earth Dams,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1983.
[32] Kleiner, David, Use of Granular Filters and Drains in Embankment Dams,
United States Committee on Large Dams, Committee on Materials for
Embankment Dams, 1994.
[33] Honjo, Y., and D. Veneziano, “Improved Filter Criterion for Cohesionless
Soils,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, pp. 75-94.
[36] Schmertmann, John H., “The No-Filter Factor of Safety Against Piping
Through Sands,” Judgement and Innovation, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 111, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 63-133,
2001.
[38] Weijers, J.B.A., and J.B. Sellmeijer, “A New Model to Deal With the Piping
Mechanisms, Filters in Geotechnical and Hydraulic Engineering,
Brauns, Heibaum & Schuler (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 349-355,
1993.
[39] Chapuis, Robert P., “Similarity of Internal Stability Criteria for Granular
Soils,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29, 1992, p.711-713.
[43] Sherard, J.L. L.P. Dunnigan, and J.R. Talbot, “Filters for Silts and Clays,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering., American Society of Civil
Engineers, No. 110 (6), pp. 701-718. June 1984.
[44] Sherard, J.L. and Lorn P. Dunnigan, “Filters and Leakage Control in
Embankment Dams,” Seepage and Leakage from Dams and
Impoundments, American Society of Civil Engineers Symposium,
Denver, CO, pp. 1-29, May 1985.
[45] Foster, M., Robin Fell, and Matt Spannagle, “A Method for Assessing the
Relative Likelihood of Failure of Embankment Dams by Piping,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1025–1061, 2000.
[46] Foster, M., Robin Fell, and Matt Spannagle, “The Statistics of Embankment
Dam Failures and Accidents,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37,
pp. 1000-1024, 2000.
[47] Farrar, J.A., R.L. Torres, and Z. Erdogon, “Bureau of Reclamation Erosion
Testing for Evaluation of Piping and Internal Erosion of Dams,”
Geotechnics of Soil Erosion, GSP 167, Proceedings of Geo-Denver,
2007.
[49] Vaughan, P.R., and H.F. Soares, “Design of Filters for Clay Cores of
Dams,” Journal of the Geotechnical Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 108 (GT1), pp. 17-31, January 1982.
[50] Vaughan, P.R., “Design of Filters for the Protection of Cracked Dam Cores
Against Internal Erosion,” American Society of Civil Engineers
Convention and Exposition, Chicago, IL, October 16-20, 1978.
[53] Hamblin, Kenneth W., The Earth’s Dynamic Systems, Third Edition,
Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN, 1982.
[54] Ritter, Dale F., Process Geomorphology, W.M.C. Publishers, Dubuque, IA,
1978.
[55] Pabst, Mark, “Considerations for Filter Design,” Proceedings of the USSD
Annual Conference, Denver, CO, 2007.
[56] Hammer, David P., “Construction of Vertical and Inclined Sand Drains in
Embankment Dams, Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual
Conference, Minneapolis, MN, 2003.
[57] Navin, Emily S., Matthew Sleep, J. Michael Duncan, Thomas L. Brandon,
and Yougjin Park, “Design and Installation of Filters for Embankment
Dams,” Report of a Study Performed by the Virginia Polytechnic
University Center for Practice and Research, Blacksburg, VA,
November 2006.
[63] Sherard, James L., R.J. Woodward, and S.F. Gizienski, Earth and Earth-
Rock Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY, 1963.
[68] Polous, Steve, “Compaction Control and the Index Unit Weight,”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 100-108,
June 1988.
[69] McCook, Danny K., “Correlations Between a Simple Field Test and
Relative Density Test Values,” Technical Note, American Society of
Civil Engineering, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No.
10, pp. 860-862, October 1996.
[70] Prochaska, Adam B., “An Alternative Method for Effective Compaction
Control of Granular Soils, Thesis for Master Science Degree, Purdue
University, August 2004.
Haliburton, T.A., T.M. Petry, and M.L. Hayden, Identification and Treatment of
Dispersive Clay Soils, USBR Contract No. 14-06-D-7535, School of Engineering,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, July 1975.
Investigation of Wooden Well Screens for Grenada, Enid, and Sardis Dams,
Engineering and Design, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, Engineering
Casagrande, A., “Seepage Through Dams,” Journal of the New England Water
Works Association, Vol. 51, No. 2, June 1937, pp. 131-172.
Casagrande, A., and W.L. Shannon, “Base Course Drainage for Airport
Pavements,” Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 117, 1952,
pp. 798-820.
DeMello, Victor F.B., Some Lessons from Unsuspected, Real and Fictitious
Problems in Earth Dam Engineering in Brazil, Sixth Regional Conference for
Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Durban, South Africa,
September 1975.
Ground Water and Wells, A Reference Book for the Water-Well Industry, Fourth
Printing, Johnson Division, UOP Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1975.
Harza, L.G., “Uplift and Seepage Under Dams on Sand.” Transactions of ASCE,
1935.
Lambe, T.W. and R.V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1969.
Logani, K.L., “Dispersive Soils Chosen for Ullum Core,” World Water,
August 1979.
McDaniel, T.N., and R.S. Deker, “Dispersive Soil Problem at Los Esteros Dam,”
September 1979.
Morison, “The Bohio Dam,” Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 49, 1902, with
discussions.
Phillips, J.T., Case Histories of Repairs and Designs for Dams Built with
Dispersive Clay, Dispersive Clays, Related Piping, and Erosion in Geotechnical
Projects, Symposium, ASTM Special Technical Publication 623, 1976.
Rubey, W.W., “Settling Velocities of Gravel, Sand, and Silt Particles,” American
Journal of Science, Vol. 25, 1933.
Taylor, D.W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, London,
1948.
Terzaghi, K., Effect of Minor Geological Details on the Safety of Dams, Technical
Publication 215, AIMME, 1929.
General Texts
Singh, Bharat and H.D. Sharma, Earth and Rockfill Dams, Sarita Prakashan,
India.
Sowers, G.F. and H.L. Salley, Earth and Rockfill Dam Engineering, Water
Sherard, J.L., R.J. Woodward, S.F. Gizienski, and W.A. Cleavenger, Earth and
Swihart, Jay, Laboratory Pipe Box Test on Toe Drains at Lake Alice Dam and
Permeability of Selected Clean Sands and Gravels, Soil Mechanics Note No. 9,
American Water Works Association, Concrete Pressure Pipe, AWWA M9. 1995.
ASTM International, “Standard Test Method for Minimum Index Density and
Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density,” Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, D4254-00. 2000.
_____, Standard Test Method D7382, “Standard Test Methods for Determination
of Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Water Content Range for Effective
Compaction of Granular Soils Using a Vibrating Hammer,.” ASTM,
PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. 2008c.
_____, “The Use of Laboratory Tests to Develop Design Criteria for Protective
Filters,” Earth Laboratory Report No. EM-425. June 20, 1955.
_____, “Laboratory filter tests on concrete sand and gravel,.” EM-588, Denver,
CO. 1960.
_____, Analyses of Geological and Geotechnical Issues at Lake Alice Dams No.1
and 1-½ for Modification Decision Analysis, Tech. Memo No. LA-3620
MDA-1, (Internal Report). 1990.
_____, Swihart, Jay, “Full Scale Laboratory Testing of a Toe Drain with a
Geotextile Sock,” DSO-98-014, Technical Service Center, Materials
Engineering and Research Laboratory, Denver, CO. December 1997a.
_____, Swihart, Jay, “Laboratory Pipe Box Test on Toe Drains at Lake Alice
Dam and Enders Dam,” Technical Service Center, Materials Engineering
and Research Laboratory, Denver, CO. December 1997b.
_____, “Earth Manual – Part 1, 3rd edition,” Earth Science and Research
Laboratory Geotechnical Research, Denver, CO. 1998.
_____, “Investigation of the Hole Erosion Test used to Determine Erosion Indices
of Soils for Evaluating Risk of Internal Erosion in Embankment Dams.”
August 2004.
Chapuis, Robert. P., “Similarity of Internal Stability Criteria for Granular Soils,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29, 711-713. 1992.
_____, “Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using
effective diameter and void ratio,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 41,
pp. 787-795. 2004.
August 1968.
Day, Steven R., Christopher R. Ryan , and Gary Fisk, Innovative Slurry Trench
Methods for the Rehabilitation of Small Dams, 2001 ASDSO Annual
Conference.
Fannin, Jonathan, “On the Internal Stability of Granular Soils,” Canadian Dam
Association 2002 Annual Conference, Victoria, BC. October 2002.
France, John W., “Report on Workshop on Issues, Solutions, and Research Needs
Related to Seepage through Embankment Dams, 2001 ASDSO Annual
Conference.
_____, “Seepage and Piping – the Devil is in the Details,” 2004 ASDSO Annual
Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
_____, “Seepage Collection and Control Systems: The Devil is in the Details,”
2004 ASDSO Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Garner, S.J. and J.C. Sobkowicz, “Internal Instability in Gap-Graded Cores and
Filters, Canadian Dam Association 2002 Annual Conference.
October 2002.
Guy, Erich, Todd Calhoun, George Alford, Charles Barry, and Alford Rogers,
“Relief Wells Rehabilitation at Alum Creek and Dillon Dams,” 2006
ASDSO Annual Conference.
Harza, L.G., “Uplift and Seepage Under Dams on Sand,” Paper No. 1920,
Transactions of ASCE. September 1934.
Hillis, S.F. and E.G. Truscott ,“Magat Dams: Design of Internal Filters and
Drains,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal: 20, 491-501. 1983.
Hjeldnes, E.I. and V.K. Lavania, Cracking, leakage and erosion of earth dam
materials, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. 106
(GT2), pp. 117-135. 1980.
Justin, Joel. D., “Discussion of Paper 1920, Transactions of ASCE titled “Uplift
and Seepage under Dams on Sand” by L.F. Harza. September 1934.
Kannik, Mia, A Boil on the Back Side of Salt Fork Lake Dam, What a Pain in the
… , 2005 ASDSO Annual Conference.
Karpoff, K.P., The use of laboratory tests to develop design criteria for
protective filters, Proceedings, American Society of Testing Materials,
Vol. 55, pp. 1183-1198. 1955.
Kenney, T.C., Discussion of: Design of filters for clay cores of dams, Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 9,
pp. 1191-1193. 1983.
Kenney, T.C., R. Chahal, E. Chiu, G.I. Ofoegbu, G.N. Omange, and C.A. Ume,
“Controlling Constriction Sizes of Granular Filters,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal: 22, 32-34. 1985.
Khor, C.H. and H.K. Woo, Investigation of crushed rock filters for dam
embankment, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115 (3),
pp. 399-412. 1989.
Lade, P.V., C.D. Liggio, Jr., and J.A. Yamamuro, “Effects of Non-Plastic
Fines on Minimum and Maximum Void Ratios of Sand,” Geotechnical
Testing Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 336-347. 1998.
Lafleur, Jean, Jacek Mlynarek, and Andre’ Rollin, “Filtration of Broadly Graded
Cohesionless Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115,
No. 12, pp. 1747-1768. December 1989.
Lee, Kenneth and Awtar Singh, “Relative Density and Relative Compaction,”
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97,
No. SM7, Technical Note, pp. 1049-1052. July 1971.
Leonards, G.A., A.B. Huang, and J. Ramos, “Piping and Erosion Tests at Conner
Run Dam,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1,
108-117. 1991.
Lo, K.Y. and K. Kaniaru, Hydraulic fracture in earth and rock-fill dams,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal: 27, pp. 496-506. 1990.
Lone, M., A. Hussain, and G.L. Asawa, “Filter Design Criteria for Graded
Cohesionless Bases,” Journal GTE, ASCE, pp. 251-259. February 2005.
Lowe, John, III, “Fourth Nabor Carillo Lecture, Foundation Design – Tarbela
Dam,” presented at the Mexican Society for Soil Mechanics X National
Meeting, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. November 18, 1978.
Luehring, Ron , Stuart Bezanson, and Roy Grant, Averting Incipient Piping
Failure of a Turn-of-the-Century Wilderness Dam, 1999 ASDSO Annual
Conference.
Mansur, Charles, George Postol, and J.R. Salley, “Performance of Relief Well
Systems along Mississippi River Levees,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 8, pp 727-738. August 2000.
_____, “Things Your Mother Never Told You About Earth Dam Design.”
2002 ASDSO Annual Conference, Tampa, FL.
McCook, Danny K. and Mark Pabst, Pipes in Drain Systems – Are They a
Necessary Evil? 2006 ASDSO Annual Conference, Boston, MA.
Middlebrooks, T.A. and William H. Jervis, “Relief Wells for Dams and Levees,”
Transactions, ASCE, Paper No. 2327, Vol. 112, pp 1321-1399. June 1946.
Miller, Debora J., Alan C. Jewell, and Kevin Smith, Tongue River Dam. 2001
ASDSO Annual Conference.
Miller, Debora J., Dean B. Durkee, Michael A. Morrison, David B. Wilson, and
Kevin Smith, Geosynthetics Applications and Performance Reviews –
Select Case Histories. 2005 ASDSO Annual Conference.
Mirata, Turker and Tanfer Gurler, “A Modified Way of Testing Filters for Clay
Cores of Embankment Dams,” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering. 2004.
_____, USDA, Soil Mechanics Note SM-3, “Soil Mechanics Considerations for
Embankment Drains.” May 1971.
_____, “Soil Mechanics Note SMN-5, Flow Net Construction and Use.” 1973.
_____, Engineering Division, Soil Mechanics Note No. 1, 210-VI, “Guide for
Determining the Gradation of Sand and Gravel Filters.” Revised
January 1986.
_____, USDA. Soil Mechanics Note SMN-13, Dispersive Clays. February 1991.
_____, National Engineering Handbook, Part 636 Chapter 52, “Structural Design
of Flexible Conduits.” 2004.
_____, “Design and Construction of Access Features for Toe Drains,” 2007b
ASDSO Annual Conference, Austin, TX.
Pabst, Mark and Z.Z. Lee, “Seepage Analysis of Keechelus Dam Foundation,”
ASDSO Annual Conference, Indian Wells, CA, September7-11, 2008.
_____, Where has all the judgment gone? Canadian Geotechnical Journal:
17 (4), pp. 584-590, 1980.
______, “Interface between core and downstream filter,” Proc., H. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symp., Vol . 2, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, 237-251. 1990.
Perry, E.P., Piping in earth dams constructed of dispersive clay: literature review
and design of laboratory tests, Technical Report S-75-15, Vicksburg, MS:
Waterways Exp. Station. 1975.
Perry, Edward B. and Mosaid M. Al-Hussaini, “Filters and Drains for Earth
Dams. 1995 ASDSO Annual Conference.
Pettibone, H.C. and J. Hardin, “Research on Vibratory Maximum Density Test for
Cohesionless Soils,” In: Compaction of Soils: ASTM Special Publication
No. 377, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp. 3-19. 1965.
Pinto, P.S., E. Sêco, and T. Santana, “Filters for Clay Cores of Embankment
Dams.” Twelfth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 12(3), 1689-1692. 1989.
Reddi, L.N., X. Ming, M.G. Hajra, and I.M. Lee, “Permeability Reduction of Soil
Filters Due to Physical Clogging,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 3,236-246. 2000.
Saber, Robert T. and William J. Franz, “Evaluation of Broadly Graded Soils and
Existing Filter Material for Compatibility and Internal Stability at G.B.
Stevenson Dam. 2003 ASDSO Annual Conference.
Selig, E.T. and R.S. Ladd, “Evaluation of Relative Density Measurements and
Applications,” Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical
Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils, ASTM STP 523, pp. 487-504. 1973.
_____, Discussion of: Design of filters for clay cores of dams. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109 (9), pp. 1195-1197. 1983.
Sherard, J.L., R.S. Decker, and N.L. Ryker, Study of Piping Failures and Erosion
Damage from Rain in Clay Dams in Oklahoma and Mississippi, a report
prepared for the Soil Conservation Service. 1972.
_____, “Critical Filters for Impervious Soils,” ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, No. 115(7), pp. 927-947. July 1989.
Singh, V.P., et al., “Role of Sand Boil Formation in Levee Failure,” paper
presented at XXIX International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and
Research, Theme C. Beijing, China. September 2001.
Smith Stuart A. and Denise M. Hosler, Current Research in Dam Drain Clogging
and its Prevention. 2006 ASDSO Annual Conference.
Spangler, M.G. and R.L. Handy, Soil Engineering, 4th Edition, Harper and Row.
1982.
Talbot, James R. and David C. Ralston, “Earth Dam Seepage Control, SCS
Experience.” Seepage and Leakage from Dams and Impoundments,
ASCE Symposium, p. 4, Denver, CO. May 1985.
Talbot, James and Mark Pabst, “Filters for Earth Dams Gradation Design and
Construction Guidance Used by Federal Agencies,” ASDSO Journal of Dam
Safety, pp. 13-24.
Winter, 2006.
Terzaghi, K., R.B. Peck, and G. Mesri, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,”
3rd edition, Wiley, New York, NY. 1996.
Tomlinson, S.S. and Y.P. Vaid, “Seepage forces and confining pressure effects on
piping erosion, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1-13. 2000.
Townsend, F.C., J.M. Shiau, and T.J. Pietrus, “Piping Susceptibility and Filter
Criteria for Sand,” Engineering Aspects of Soil Erosion, Dispersive Clays
and Loess, Geotechnical Special Publication 10, ASCE, 46-66. 1987.
Truscott, E.G., Discussion of: “Design of filters for clay cores of dams,” Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109 (9), pp. 1195-1197. September
1983.
Turnbull, W.J. and C.I. Mansur, “Design of Control Measures for Dams and
Levees,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY,
10017. October 1959.
_____, “Underseepage and Its control,” ASCE Symposium, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, p. 1513. August 1959.
_____, Technologies and Techniques for Drainage Pipe Maintenance and Repair:
A Practical Guide to Technology Selection. 2001b.
Von Thun, J.L., Understanding seepage and piping failures – the No. 1 dam safety
problem in the west. In: Proceedings of the Association of Dam Safety
Officials (ASDSO) Western Regional Conference, Lake Tahoe, NV, pp.
1-24. 1996.
Wilson, L.C. and A.L. Melvill, Discussion of: “Design of filters for clay cores
of dams,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109 (9),
pp. 1198-1200. 1983.
Wolski, W., Model Tests on the Seepage Erosion in the Silty Clay Core of an
Earth Dam. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Vol. II, Division 3-6,
pp. 583-587. 8-15 September 1965.
by Harry R. Cedergren
Appendix A
Figure A-1a shows a vertical “chimney” drain in a dam, and an outlet blanket drain.
Each of these two parts of the system has a “filter” layer against the soil from which
water is entering the drain (zone 1), an internal coarse gravel or crushed rock drain
for discharge of the water (zone 2), and a transition zone to protect the coarse layer
against contamination from adjacent embankment material (zone 3). The No. 1
zones are true “filters” and must be designed using the Filter Criteria given in this
chapter. When the filters are of large expanse and provide large inflow areas for
seepage, and there are no severe concentrations or converging flow, as in
figure A-1a, the standard filter criteria generally will ensure that filters will be
“somewhat” more permeable than soils being drained. Designers should always
make sure that filters will be more permeable than soils being drained, never less
permeable. If there is ever any doubt, the permeability of the filters should be
verified by suitable laboratory or field tests.
Flow in the interior drain layer (zone 2) in the “chimney” drain in figure A-1a is
vertically downward under a hydraulic gradient of approximately 1.0. Inasmuch as
the required transmissibility T is equal to kt, and kt is equal to the discharge
seepage quantity, Q divided by the hydraulic gradient, i, in the drain, its
transmissibility must be at least Q/i or Q/1.0 or Q. But, in the outlet blanket, the
hydraulic gradient is limited to an amount that will not allow excessive head to
build up, and often must not exceed 2 or 3 percent. So the required transmissibility
is equal to the discharge seepage quantity, Q, divided by 0.02 or 0.03 (typ.). (Note
that the value of Q in the vertical part of the drain is different from the value of Q in
the horizontal part of the drain. Subscripts such as “1” and “2” can be used if
desired). Because of the small allowable hydraulic gradient in the outlet blanket
and the usually greater seepage quantity, its transmissibility often must be at least
50 to 100 times that of the vertical part of the drain.
Very little water is likely to enter the drainage system from the downstream
embankment zone, but the zone 3 transitions should be designed to meet the filter
criteria so fine material will not enter and clog the drains from this side.
Figure A-1b shows a toe drain or trench drain with a pipe discharging the seepage
to an exit. Surrounding the pipe is a zone of crushed rock or gravel (zone 2)
designed to prevent piping of the surrounding zone of sand and gravel (zone 1)
through the drain. Holes or slots in the pipe should be kept small enough to prevent
the crushed rock or gravel from moving into the pipe. The sand and gravel (zone 1)
is primarily a filter as it must hold all surrounding soils in place; however, it must
have sufficient transmissibility to allow all incoming water to reach the coarse (No.
2 zone) without being choked off. Because this No. 1 zone is relatively large and
provides rather large flow area, adequate permeability is usually not difficult to
achieve. Nevertheless, in situations such as are shown here, because inadequate
permeability can endanger projects, the transmissibility of both zones 1 and 2
should be checked by hydraulic calculations. The No. 2 zone is relatively small in
size so its permeability must be increased sufficiently to compensate for its reduced
inflow area.
Though the idea that the discharge capacity of drains must be great enough to
remove all water needing to be removed without excessive head is not a new
concept, hardly any designers have been consciously making calculations to
establish minimum acceptable permeabilities in drains. Some major earth dams
built in the past 20 to 30 years have had expensive, elaborate drainage systems that
have provided practically no benefits because the drain zones contained so many
fines that the discharge capabilities were as small as 1 percent or less of the levels
needed. Careful application of the principles outlined in this appendix can virtually
eliminate such errors. Making a hydraulic analysis, as discussed here, can be just as
important as analyzing filter requirements, whenever discharge capacity of drains is
important.
Figure A-1. Illustration of Filtering and Transmissibility Needs of Drains in Dams and Other Water
Impounding Structures.
Geotextiles as Filters
by James R. Talbot
Appendix B
Geotextiles as Filters
Geotextiles in Embankment Dams
The following statement explains the current practice for using geotextiles in dams.
The statement is taken from the July 2007 draft of “Geotextiles in Embankment
Dams,” Status Report on the Use of Geotextiles in Embankment Dam Construction
and Rehabilitation:
the United States limit the use of geotextiles to locations where there is easy
access for repair and replacement (shallow burial), or where the geotextile
function is not critical to the safety of the dam should the geotextile fail to
perform.
It is the policy of the National Dam Safety Review Board that geotextiles
should not be used in locations that are both critical to safety and inaccessible
for replacement.”
The authors of this manual concur with this policy, and additional discussion is
provided in the following section.
dams. This testing and extended successful use has demonstrated that the intended
performance of these materials as filters for dams has been met. This is not the case
with geotextiles as their “use” in embankment dams has been very limited. It is
useful to consider the characteristics of sand filters in evaluating their success and
to compare these characteristics with geotextiles for determining whether
geotextiles can provide the same desirable performance.
Clean sand or sand and gravel mixtures act as a single-grain material. When there
is very little or no binder material (fines such as silt and clay or a cementing agent)
within the sand, it will flow to a soil boundary such as the side of a trench or a soil
zone in an embankment and apply a positive pressure. The soil boundary acts as a
barrier or containment for the sand as it is placed and compacted in a zone or
trench. With no soil binder or cementing agent, the sand will shift or cave to
maintain a continuous, homogeneous zone without cracks or openings as the dam
settles or shifts during construction or during the first filling of the reservoir or an
earthquake.
For intergranular seepage flow (seepage through soil with no cracks or defects),
filters designed using current criteria were successful in testing studies for
preventing any particles from detaching on the discharge face under high gradients.
Apparently, there is some arching between the closely spaced contact points where
the filter is in contact with the discharge face to prevent any movement of particles.
Testing and experience shows that too coarse filters or other materials that do not
support the discharge face with closely spaced contact points as seen in granular
filters will not prevent soil particles from detaching when the seepage gradients
exceed the critical gradient of the soil.
Coarse
drainfill on
downstream
side of
geotextile
provides wide
spacing of
contact points
Soil Discharge Face on soil
discharge face
Figure B-1. Cross section of a base soil covered by a geotextile that is then
covered by coarse gravel. Due to the voids in the gravel, the geotextile can “flex”
into these voids, resulting in the loss of positive pressure on the base soil
discharge face. Base soil particles can then detach and clog the geotextile.
There are many examples that demonstrate geotextiles do not prevent detachment
of soil particles at the drain/soil interface when critical gradients are exceeded.
Geotextiles used under riprap on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Engineer Technical Letter No. 1110-2-286, “Engineering and
Design Use of Geotextiles Under Riprap,” dated 25 July 1984) showed that if the
EOS was too small, clogging of the geotextile was a problem, causing buildup of
seepage pressure under the riprap. This clogging could happen only if soil particles
were detached with seepage water flowing out of the channel bank behind the
geotextile. Using a larger EOS would allow the soil particles to pass through the
geotextile, but would then cause a potential piping problem. This may not be
serious for a channel with riprap, but would be very serious for an earth dam that
retains a large reservoir of water serving as an essentially infinite source of seepage
water to develop a piping failure condition.
Most studies and reports on using geotextiles for highway drainage work indicate
that geotextiles either clog or allow soil particles to pass through. The most
significant of these is Geosynthetics Research Institute paper (GRI-18, “Rapid
Assessment of Geotextile Clogging Potential Using the Flexible Wall Gradient
Ratio Test,” by T.D. Bailey, M.D. Harney, and R.D. Holtz) presented at the Geo-
Frontiers Conference, 2005. The results cited in this paper indicated that most tests
showed some to major clogging while other tests showed particles passing through
the geotextile. While this may be acceptable for highway drainage, it is
not acceptable for earth dam drainage. Additional reports showing similar results
are ASTM STP-1281, “Recent Developments in Geotextile Filters and
Prefabricated Drainage Composites,” and NCHRP Report 367, “Long-Term
Performance of Geosynthetics in Drainage Applications.”
There have also been successful drainage applications of geotextiles used in trench
drains away from the dam where the potential for high gradients is very low. In
these applications, the geotextile has been placed next to the soil in a trench with a
coarse gravel drainfill inside the geotextile with or without a perforated or slotted
drainpipe to carry the seepage water to a safe outlet. In these successful cases, the
seepage passing through the soil does not have a gradient large enough to detach
the soil particles where the geotextile is not in intimate contact with the soil
between the gravel particles. It is recommended that this design not be used due to
the difficulty in determining the gradient at the drain and especially estimating what
the critical gradient will be.
Geotextiles have been used with mixed results as a separator between riprap and the
upstream face of a dam. The drainage condition underneath the geotextile needs to
be carefully considered. If drainage does not occur, which could be the result of
clogging, rapid drawdown with no relief of pore pressure should be assumed for
slope stability.
Example—Filter Design
Appendix C
Example—Filter Design
Example Filter Grain Size Design
Background
In this example, a filter is required in the construction of a flood-protection
parapet wall along the top of an existing dam as shown on figure C-1. The
location of the filter material is such that the filter is not associated with a
drainage feature but is functioning as a separation layer between the existing
embankment dam core material and the aggregate base course1 for asphalt paving
on top of the dam in an area of potentially elevated seepage gradients directly
behind the parapet wall during flood surcharge. The purpose of the filter (Zone 5)
is to protect against piping failure caused by seepage flow under the wall during
flood surcharge. Interface 1 is the boundary between the embankment dam core
and the filter. Interface 2 is the contact between the filter and the aggregate base
course.
Flood Interface
Interface
Aggregate base
Filter (Zone
Existing embankment
Figure C-1. Parapet wall cross section with location of Zone 5 filter and aggregate base
course for paving.
1
“Aggregate base course” is the standard naming convention for a pavement sub-base. This
“base” should not be confused with the base soil used elsewhere in this example.
The following steps outline the procedure for specifying a filter material for this
example. This example checks for filter compatibility at the two interfaces:
(1) embankment dam core to Zone 5 filter, and (2) Zone 5 filter to aggregate base
course.
Step 1: Plot the gradation curves of the base soil materials and determine if
the base soils have dispersive clay content. The gradation curves for the existing
embankment dam core material are plotted on figure C-2. The gradation for the
five samples is fairly uniform, with the gradation curves falling within a 10-point
band for percent passing along the entire gradation curve. The existing
embankment dam is located in a region that is not known for dispersive clays.
Step 2: Determine if the base soil has particles larger than the No. 4 sieve and
if the base soil is gap-graded or potentially subject to internal instability. The
existing embankment dam core gradation curves include gravel contents in excess
of 40 percent and fines contents of 15-20 percent. The soil is also broadly graded,
with Cu = 398 to 811 (much greater than the limit of Cu < 6) and Cz = 0.64 to 1.57
(within the broadly graded range of 1 to 3). The gradation curves should be
computationally regraded.
Step 3: Prepare Adjusted Regraded Gradation Curves for Base Soils. Each of
the five gradation curves were regraded using the procedure described in chapter 5.
The regraded gradation curves are shown on figure C-3.
Step 4: Determine the base category of the soil based on the percent passing
the No. 200 sieve in accordance with table 4-1. The percent passing the No. 200
sieve for the regraded curves fall in the range of 28 to 35 percent, resulting in a base
soil category of 3 for all five gradation curves. Based on the guidance provided in
section 5.4.1.7 for base soil selection of earthfill materials with base soils that fall
within one category for an existing dam (figure 4-14), the fine side boundary of the
base soil gradation curves, as shown on figure C-3, should be used for filter design.
with a fines content of 35 percent and D85B = 1.71 millimeters (mm) from the fine
side boundary of the existing embankment dam core gradation curves, the
maximum D15F is calculated as:
This values is less than the minimum value of 0.1 mm specified in the procedure, so
the minimum D15F = 0.1 mm. This value is plotted as point B on figure C-4.
Step 7: Determine the limits of D60F to limit the width of the filter band and
possible gap-gradedness.
G >= 0.15 mm
H = G x 5
Step 8: Determine the minimum D5F and maximum D100F to limit the amount
of fines and oversized material in accordance with table 4-3. For all base soil
categories, (D5F)min = 0.075 mm and (D100F)max = 51 mm. These points are plotted
as points I and J, respectively, on figure C-4.
Step 10: Determine the gradation band within the control limits. As a trial, the
gradation band for C33 “concrete sand” is plotted on figure C-5, along with the
filter control points from figure C-4 to determine if it falls within the control points.
2
In this example, a “horizontal sliding bar” is used the width of the gradation limits. This
procedure is a variation of the method used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in their
filter design standard. The procedure presented in section 5.4.7 of this chapter uses a “vertical
sliding bar.” The ‘vertical bar method’ is presented later in this example. Both methods results in
the same solution.
The band width defined by points G and H was slid between points E and F such
that it coincides with the gradation band for C33 “concrete sand.” Because the
gradation band for C33 “concrete sand” falls within all of the filter control points
for Interface 1, C33 “concrete sand” can be used as the filter material for this
interface.
Figure C-5. Gradation for C33 “concrete sand” plotted with the filter control points
for Interface 1.
Figure C-6. Gradation for C33 “concrete sand” plotted with the filter control points
for Interface 1 from alternate method.
Steps 1-3: The gradation range for the C33 “concrete sand,” shown on figures C-4
and C-5, is fairly uniform and has less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. This
material is not gap graded (Cu = 4 to 4.2 and Cz = 0.9 to 1.0). Therefore, the
C33 gradations do not need to be regraded.
Step 4: The percent passing the No. 200 sieve for C33 “concrete sand” is less than
2 percent, resulting in a base soil category of 4. Based on the guidance provided in
section 5.4.1 for base soil selection of earthfill materials with base soils that fall
within one category, the fine side boundary should be used for filter design.
Step 5: For base soil category 4, with a D85B = 1.18 mm from the fine side
boundary of the C33 gradation curves, the maximum D15F is calculated by:
Step 6: With D15B = 0.18 mm from the fine side boundary of the C33 gradation
curves, the equation for the minimum allowable D15F gives:
G >= 0.15 mm
H = G x 5
Step 8: For all base soil categories, (D5F)min = 0.075 mm and (D100F)max =
51 mm. These points are plotted as points I and J, respectively, on figure C-7.
Step 9: For all base soil categories, with a minimum D10F = 0.63 mm, the
maximum D90F = 25 mm. This point is plotted as point K on figure C-7.
Step 10: ASTM D448 No. 467 is selected as a trial gradation. The gradation band
for the No. 467 material is plotted on figure C-8, along with the filter control points
from figure C-7 to determine if it falls within the control points.
Figure C-8. Gradation for ASTM D448 No. 467 plotted with the filter control points
for Interface 2.
Because the gradation band for the No. 467 material falls outside of the coarse
side filter gradation control points (particle retention requirements) for the
C33 “concrete sand,” the filter design for this interface will be adjusted to
emphasize permeability requirements. For this filter interface, the maximum D15F
can be increased to (D15F)max = 9 x D85B, which will allow for particle
rearrangement.3 This is allowable because both the base soil (C33 “concrete sand”)
and the filter (ASTM D448 No. 467) are processed materials and grain size
variability is minimized.
The adjusted points A, C, E, and K are plotted, along with the other filter control
points for Interface 2 and the gradation band for ASTM D448 No. 467, on
figure C-9.
The band width defined by points G and H was slid between points E and F such
that it coincides with the gradation band for No. 467. Because the gradation band
for No. 467 falls within all of the filter control points for Interface 2, No. 467 is
acceptable as the filter material for this interface.
3
Also known as partial erosion, this is the erosion boundary between “no erosion” and
“continuous erosion.”
Figure C-9. Gradation for ATSM D448 No. 467 material plotted with modified
control points for Interface 2 (allow for particle rearrangement)
Final Gradations
The regraded gradation curves for the existing embankment dam core material are
plotted together with the gradation bands for the C33 “concrete sand” for the
Zone 5 filter and the ASTM D448 No. 467 aggregate base course for paving on
figure C-10.
Figure C-10. Gradations for regraded existing embankment dam core material,
C33 “concrete sand” (Zone 5 filter), and ASTM D448 No. 467 (aggregate base
course).
Note: The pavement is impervious and will impede flow out of the base material.
Therefore, sufficient outlet at the downstream side of the pavement is provided to
relive uplift pressures. Otherwise, the pavement will be lifted and damaged.
Upon first filling, silt and sand were detected in the sedimentation traps that were
included in the inspection wells added during the modification. The rate at which
material was collecting in the sedimentation traps, along with the cloudy color of
the collected flow, indicated that the new drainage system had failed in some way.
A forensic investigation was undertaken in the form of removing portions of the
new drain system. That investigation led to the following understanding of what
had happened.
As shown on figure D-2, the filter layer against the foundation was found to be less
than the specified width and, in some places, was completely missing. It has been
speculated that when the trackhoe rotated, the back of the cab would run into
previously placed filter material. It is also possible that equipment travel along the
trench, as well as entering and exiting the trench, could have led to removal of the
filter layer against the foundation. Construction was performed in the winter
months while the reservoir was low, and the limited hours of daylight resulted in
some construction at night. While continuous onsite construction inspection was
performed by the owner, the damage was not detected by staff.
Since the gravel drain was in direct contact with the foundation in some places and
the foundation contains silts, sands, and gravels, filter compatibility was not met.
Therefore, silt and sand were able to erode (pipe) into the gravel drain as shown on
figure D-3.
Material transport continued through the gravel drain and through the perforations
in the drainage pipe. The flow in the pipe then carried the material to the sediment
trap, where it was identified during refill monitoring. Material transfer into the pipe
is illustrated on figure D-4.
Figure D-4. Foundation soil passes through gravel drain and enters drainpipe.
Figure D-5 illustrates the problems with the toe drain design. The narrow bottom
width made it impractical for commonly available construction equipment to work
in the bottom of the trench. The 21-foot depth made it impractical to work from the
top to place initial lifts in the bottom of the trench. Trenches should always be
sized so equipment can work from inside the trench and not from the top.
Relatively steep side slopes were used and, while material could be placed and
compacted on this slope, traffic up and down the slope would damage the surface.
Lastly, narrow filter and gravel drain zones were used that were difficult to place
and prone to damage.
Trench
Filter is too
Trench deep for
too
sides are this
narrow
too steep width
Drain
too
narrow*
Trench width
* Too many zones for this width is too narrow
Inspection Wells
The first component of an IW is the square base slab as shown in figure E-1.
Reinforced concrete is used which can be either cast in place or a precast product.
Slabs larger than 14 feet may be difficult to transport over the road, so cast in place
construction would have to be used. The size of the base is dependent on the size
of the risers described in the next section. The base should extend beyond the
outside diameter of the riser by no less than 6 inches. (Example: a 10-foot
diameter riser would have an 11-foot-square base slab). Bearing capacity of the
IW foundation is not an issue since the weight of the soil replaced by the volume of
the IW results in a condition similar to a floating foundation.
The next components of the IW are the risers as shown on figure E-1. The risers
are precast concrete rings (sewer pipe) 8, 10, or 12 feet in diameter. The size
(diameter) of the riser is dependent on the expected flow through the well. Larger
flows require a larger structure in order to accommodate the sediment trap and flow
measurement device. Smaller flows can be measured by a weir, while larger flows
will require a flume, which itself will require a larger diameter well. The height of
the IW is dependent on the invert elevation of the drain and the final grade of the
ground surface. The riser should be set no less than 1 foot above final grade. When
the ground surface is sloping, the IW should be no less than 1 foot above the
highest point on the slope/riser contact. Risers typically come in 4- to 8-foot
lengths, and this determines the number of risers needed. Typically, the precast
concrete manufacturer will determine the length of the individual segments given
the total height required. Risers should be built in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 478. Interlocking joints should be
used between risers, and these joints should be sealed for water tightness meeting
the requirements of ASTM C 920 (Sikaflex or equivalent). The bottom face of the
bottom riser and the top face of the top riser should have flat surfaces as butt joints
are used against the base and lid. These surfaces should also be sealed. Finally, a
precast concrete lid is placed on top of the IW. Lid thickness is determined by the
precast concrete manufacturer and is dependent on the well diameter and prescribed
loads. Typically, in dam applications, vehicle loading is not required; however, if
the IW is situated such that it is possible that a vehicle could pass over the IW,
intentionally or not, HS-20 loading can be specified.
Concrete cover
Riser (precast
concrete section)
Drainage Flow
tubing
The bottom of the inspection well is separated into several bays. Divider walls are
used to make these bays. The number of bays depends on the number of inlet and
outlet pipes and the required flow measurements. The walls should be constructed
out of metal, which will offer flexibility if changes are required at a later date. The
upstream bay serves as the sediment trap and will also act as a quieting pool prior to
flow passing through the weir or flume. Depending on the amount of flow entering
this bay, a baffle may be needed to aid in quieting the flow. The bottom of this bay
should be painted white with waterproof paint to aid in the detection of sediment in
the bottom of the bay. The flow then passes through the measurement device
consisting of a flume or weir. While weirs are more economical and require less
space, they can be difficult to meet the approach requirements for quiet flow.
Flumes typically are a better flow measurement scheme for inspection wells
because they produce more consistent readings through a larger flow range.
Downstream of the weir/flume is the discharge bay, which has no special
requirements. As mentioned previously, the number of inlet and outlet pipes is
dependent on the overall drain system layout. The simplest arrangement is one pipe
in and one pipe out. Figure E-2 illustrates the basic components for the bottom of
an IW.
Riser Flow
Drainage tubing
Flow (into
sediment trap)
Concrete base slab
Sediment trap
(base painted white)
Figure E-2. Components in the bottom of a typical inspection well. Optional baffle
at the end of the inlet pipe is not shown.
In order for the measurement device to work, a head drop is required through the
IW. The drop should be no less than one pipe diameter of the largest pipe
penetrating the well. As an example, the invert of a 12-inch inlet pipe should be at
least 12 inches higher than the invert of a 12-inch outlet pipe. The invert of the
measurement device should be set above the spring line of the discharge pipe
assuming that the discharge pipe is not expected to flow full. Note that this
arrangement can lead to “flooding” of the inlet pipe (the device backs up flow into
the inlet pipe). To avoid this condition, the inlet pipe would have to be set above
the expected flow depth through the device. The designer should be aware that to
meet the head drop requirements through the inspection well, the grade of the inlet
and outlet drain segments may differ by more than 1 foot (i.e., it is not possible to
“insert” the IW into a constant grade invert from one segment to the next). Large
changes in elevation through IWs can be problematic at sites with little topographic
relief, and flooding of the inlet or discharge pipe might not be avoidable at all
times.
Grab bar
Access ladder
Landing
(safety grating)
Ventilation for the IW can be passive or active (the passive system is less costly).
Client or safety requirements will dictate which type of system to use. The passive
system consists of a vent tube, typically 8 inches in diameter from near the bottom
of the well, through the lid, and terminated with a 180-degree (º) bend. This
arrangement is also known as a J-vent due to its shape. Note that when passive
systems are used, air monitoring is required because IWs are considered confined
space.
The active type of ventilation has the same J-vent arrangement but with an inline
fan added into the pipe near the bottom of the IW. Details of sizing the fan and
on/off switching to the door are beyond the scope of this chapter. A typical J-vent
is shown in figure E-4.
Outside of the IW, special attention to the backfill is required. If the backfill
arrangement around the toe drain (filter and gravel envelope) was duplicated
around the IW, this would allow flow in the filter and drain (flow parallel to the
toe drain alignment) to not enter the pipe and bypass the flow measurement
device. For this reason, an “underground dam” is used to force water into the
pipe and through the measurement device. The dam consists of finer grain
material that encapsulates the IW. Nonperforated pipe is used through the dam
backfill. Figure E-5 illustrates this arrangement.
J-vent
Optional
inline fan
Flow
End Access
Access to the end of a drain system can be made by bringing the drainage pipe to
the ground surface (also known as a sweep). This can be done by a series of
off-the-shelf fittings. For a pipe exiting the ground at a 45° angle, two 22.5° fittings
can be used. Angles greater than 22.5° should not be used due to difficulty in
getting cameras and cleaning tools past these sharper bends. At the connection
between the drain pipe and sweep, the pipe should transition from perforated to
nonperforated since the sweep will be backfilled with finer grained material. This
material acts as a barrier to prevent surface water from entering the drain system
along the sweep, similar to impervious caps that are placed over toe drains. Near
the ground surface, the drainage pipe should be protected, typically with a
corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The drain pipe is centered inside the CMP pipe with
granular backfill. This protective shroud is embedded in the ground about 10 feet
and does not require concrete backfill. A lockable lid is fitted to the CMP to protect
access into the drain system. The components of these features are illustrated in
figure E-6.
Drain cleanout
Cover
See Detail
±
6"
Impervious backfill
"
'-0
22½° Pipe bend 10
"±
Sand
0
Gravel
1'
Nonperforated pipe
Backfill cavity with
compacted sand
Corrugated galvanized
22½° Pipe bend pipe
Perforated pipe
Detail
Figure E-6. Toe drain end access features.
Lateral Access
Similar to the end access feature described above, access to long drain segments
can be achieved by adding a lateral access. This type of access includes a
“Y” fitting inserted into the main toe drain line which only allows one-way access.
A short piece of nonperforated pipe is installed into the lateral portion of the 'Y'.
The 'Y' fitting adjusts the alignment in the horizontal direction. Next, a pipe bend is
added to adjust the alignment in the vertical direction. Another short nonperforated
piece of pipe is added, followed by another pipe bend. These two pipe bends will
bring the pipe out of the ground in the vertical plane at a 45° angle. The access is
then finished the same as the detail shown in figure E-6. An isometric view of a
typical lateral access and its components is shown in figure E-7.